A Moment in Time Can Change a Lifetime

On Chesil Beach - Ian McEwan

I've read the first of my stocking fillers and I'm not entirely sure what to say about it. Was it well written? Yes. Easy to read? Yes. Did it keep me hooked? Yes. But - and there's always a but - there was something just not quite right about this story.

Obviously it's a modern piece of literature, being shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize in 2007, and everything about the book is modern - the language, the setting, the issue. The time that the book was set in (1962) is particularly interesting - it seems England is on the verge of social change and the young couple of the novel (Edward and Florence) are caught between the old and the new regime. This is central to McEwan's book as he looks back and forward in the lives of the newlyweds.

His technique is a good one, switching subtly back and forward and changing from Edward's perspective to that of Florence. However, personally I find it distracting. I'm reading on, eager to know what's to come, when all of a sudden it's five years previous and I have to read about a little more background. It does build vivid character profiles and the reader soon understands that the rift between Edward and Florence is the result of their diverse childhoods and their burdens. McEwan suggests that perhaps the little details from our childhood, the decisions and the attitudes of our parents might make the difference between success and failure in one moment of our later lives.

That leads me to another aspect of this novel - although the storyline jumps in time, the main event only takes place in the space of a few hours, a moment. This event seems something small, but it is actually a part of a huge factor in any relationship - the physical side. Personally, I believe it comes hand in hand with the emotional side - if you can connect with someone emotionally, you can connect with them physically. However, the difficulty with McEwan's couple is just that - they cannot connect.

Is there not anything more to it? Of course there is. However, I find the blurb a bit misleading - I was ready for a mind-blowing divide between two young people caused by some devastating event or hideous past. Neither came - it is merely an issue between two people who think they are in love but who together, represent discomfort. Here McEwan is impressive - everything about the descriptions and the lovely language he uses expresses this discomfort. The author's descriptions of the two young people alone on their wedding night are my favourite aspect of the book, McEwan deserves to be highly praised for them.

However, although I can acknowledge that On Chesil Beach is a very well written, well structured novel, it does not satisfy me as a reader. It is a book that tells you 'what not to do' but, as a person who likes a good story, I don't find one in this. It is a modern book conveying an everyday issue but the few hours in which the issue surfaces for Edward and Florence feels very drawn out. It is definitely a matter of personal opinion but I do not feel that this book is very touching or insightful - there is nothing particularly unique about it. But if there's one thing this book does convey, it is that one moment in time can change an entire lifetime.

Please comment if you have anything to add to this review of 'On Chesil Beach'.

My Stocking Fillers

Firstly, Happy Christmas to you all!

I hope you're having a wonderful day, but I thought I'd interrupt it by sharing with you a few of my stocking fillers, in the field of literature.

On Chesil Beach, Ian McEwan

It is July 1962. Edward and Florence, young innocents married that morning, arrive at a hotel on the Dorset Coast. At dinner in their rooms they struggle to suppress their private fears of the wedding night to come...

This book, shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize this year, was given to me by my lovely Auntie Jacqui and her partner, Mike. It didn't win the prize but nevertheless, the novel has been well praised. It is a short novel so hopefully I will be back soon to give you some feedback on its good and - perhaps - bad points.

The Gathering, Anne Enright

The nine surviving children of the Hegarty clan gather in Dublin for the wake of their wayward brother Liam. It wasn't the drink that killed him - although that certainly helped - it was what happened to him as a boy in his grandmother's house, in the winter of 1968. His sister Veronica was there then, as she is now: keeping the dead man company, just for another little while.

Now, this one did win the Man Booker Prize, so you've probably heard of it. Enright was also in the papers around the time the prize was awarded for writing an essay that criticised the McCanns. My Grandma and Grandad bought it for me and I'm sure it will live up to its award-winning status.

Engleby, Sebastian Faulks

Mike Engleby says things that others dare not think.

Another present from my grandparents, this is something apparently "unlike anything he has written before", but since reading Birdsong, I've been a bit of a fan of Faulks. I haven't read any reviews, but it has been recommended to me by a teacher - let's hope it doesn't disappoint.

Suite Française, Irène Némirovsky

In 1941, Irène Némirovsky sat down to write a book that would convey the magnitude of what she was living through by evoking the domestic lives and personal trials of the ordinary citizens of France. Némirovsky's death in Auschwitz in 1942 prevented her from seeing the day, sixty-five years later, that the existing two sections of her planned novel sequence, "Suite Française", would be rediscovered and hailed as a masterpiece.

This, a present from my mum, sounds like an incredible story. My novel is the translation of the original French publication and I can't wait to read it. I'll have to read into the author's own story a bit more too as even that sounds like an amazing, if heart-wrenching story.

So, those are my four Christmas novels. Maybe some of you out there could help me decide what to read first, and, if you've read any of them already, let me know what you think. Hopefully, I'll have a few reviews on the way soon.

Have a happy Christmas and best wishes for the new year.

One of My Favourites

Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife." - The most famous quote from one of the most "universally" loved classics.

Published in 1813, four years before Austen's death, it has since become one of her most famous novels. It was initially titled First Impressions, but obviously it was never published under that title. Austen also first published it under the pseudonym, A Lady - there's an interesting fact for you.

Anyway, to the real business of blogging - the review. Now, I find it very difficult to review something that's both widely loved and nearly two hundred years old, but I'll give it my best shot.

The best thing about this novel is that, despite being set in a different society from today's, it's still funny. Austen's satire highlights the ridiculous characters in her society - the fussy, melodramatic mother (Mrs Bennet), the husband that regrets marrying (Mr Bennet), and the seemingly charming gentleman (Wickham). Of course, we still have these characters portrayed in modern satires - Monica from Friends, Ben from My Family and Daniel Cleaver in Bridget Jones' Diary. Therefore, Austen's novel is humourous to both the nineteenth and twenty-first century reader - we can all find a character in her novel that we can recognise.

The character of Elizabeth Bennet, from whose point of view the novel is mainly based, is very interesting; she is stubborn, a seemingly intelligent and independent woman. Quite similar to many modern heroines. However, Austen undermines these characteristics by showing her folly in falling for the dodgy Wickham, and how she eventually comes to depend on Darcy for love and money. Austen constantly ridicules the position of women in her society; they are expected to marry the first man who proposes to them; they are expected to marry for money and not love; and they are expected to marry for high status, connections and a good inheritance. Not exactly the same criteria we look for today. Clearly, Austen disagrees with them too; she herself never married, probably because she didn't believe in a loveless marriage. However, Austen is proof that a woman could be successful without having to marry someone already well-established.

The role of women is a very important theme in Austen's novel; the author suggests that in her society it was up to the woman to marry well first for their family's sake, then their own and to behave properly. Jane Bennet is the proper lady of the family; well groomed, well spoken, good natured and obedient; the perfect asset to her family. Whereas, Lydia Bennet acts as the complete opposite; flirtacious, irresponsible and a shame to her whole family when she elopes with Wickham. Austen has just about covered all the characters in her society, obviously conveying them to the extreme, from the arrogant Catherine de Bourgh to the stubborn heroine of Elizabeth. Austen clearly displays the ridiculous nature of her society and the people in it and with Catherine's obvious ill-breeding and Lydia's irritable immaturity, she makes the novel the successful, comical satire that it is.

Without a doubt, every book lover should read Pride and Pejudice, if you haven't already done so - it's guaranteed to become one of your favourites to be read over and over again.

A Lady.

PS. I've never seen the film - my love stems purely from the novel!

Please comment if you have anything to add to this review of "Pride and Prejudice".

The University Front

Well, besides me being a shocking blogger (not posting in over a month), I have in fact been succeeding on the University Front. I thought, as one student to another, I'd share with you all my ups and downs, and just this once I'd like to talk about the ups!

3rd December 2007 has recently become a very important date; yours truly has gained an interview at Cambridge University. At first, I was very excited; mainly, I was glad that all the paperwork would at least count for something! However, it's now a week until the day and I'm starting to feel a bit nervous. I have had a lot of support from everyone, but ultimately, no one can do it for me. This is the real deal (I've even bought new interview clothes) and it's finally dawned on me - I've got an interview at Cambridge! Without a shadow of a doubt, if I get offered a place there, I'll grab it with both hands. It's nice to think that perhaps the thirteen years of hard work will amount to an education so priceless and prestigious.

So, where am I going with this? Well, apart from sharing my own good feelings, this post is also a quick note to all potential university applicants. That is - go for it! To be honest, when first considering applying to Cambridge, I was overwhelmed, under-confident and didn't have the faith of all of my peers that I could do it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not getting ahead of myself, I am hardly expecting the interviewers to jump up and offer me a place as soon as I step through the door. However, at least after all this, success or not, I will know exactly what could have happened. So, if any of you are having doubts about whether to apply for that certain course, college or university, don't. After all, what's stopping you? There's no harm in trying, you won't live the rest of your life wondering what might have been and most importantly we are all at that valuable stage of our lives where there are few burdens of responsibility - we've nothing to lose.

What are you waiting for? Stop dallying and get that UCAS form completed.

Good luck!

Dumbledore's Out in the Big Apple

Last Friday in New York, J.K. Rowling shocked her fans by revealing that the headmaster at Hogwarts was gay. Naturally, whether readers are particularly shocked or not, the news has sparked controversy from the academic to the religious world.

To be honest, all those purple robes and dodgy hats were bound to suggest something but it seems that Albus' sexuality has been welcomed by most fans. However, for others, particularly some religious groups, it has not been well received. Nigel Farndale of the The Daily Telegraph even suggests that "it is quite possible that the intolerant evangelical Christian Right in America will start burning Harry Potter books". Well, they've done it before.

Of course, there is no concrete evidence in the novels to say that Dumbledore was homosexual, it is simply the imagination of the author; "I have always thought of Dumbledore as gay", says Rowling. In my opinion, the sexuality of Harry's mentor is not essential in the books, however, academics searching for a subtext (previously trying to prove Harry's homosexuality) will undoubtedly scour the text to find suggestions of Albus' "passion". Farndale writes that perhaps Dumbledore took a dislike to Tom Riddle because the young wizard rejected his advances; after all, the reasons were never explained and Riddle soon waged war against Dumbledore as Lord Voldemort. But, did Voldemort's terrifying wrath really exist simply because he had a gay tiff with his former mentor? Personally, I think it's a bit extreme to say so.

Nevertheless, Dumbledore was always a man of tolerance and no doubt his iconic character has pleased the homosexuals of the 'muggle' world. So, although a slightly bizarre Potter announcement, the news will undoubtedly cause more discussion than was ever intended and lead to new interpretations of the novels; even if it doesn't have anything to do with the storyline. Question remains, however, why has Rowling chosen to tell us?

Calling all Harry Potter fans to let me know what you think - please comment.

"The Greatest War Novel of All Time"

All Quiet on the Western Front -Erich Maria Remarque

"To no man does the earth mean so much as to the soldier" - one quote from the whole novel that sticks in my mind. Studying the First World War through Wilfred Owen and Sebastian Faulks, through my history lessons (and a free DVD Dad got with the Daily Mail) I have come to understand that the earth, Mother Nature, is a soldier's best friend. I chose to write my coursework on the subject and I have discovered an immense interest that has led in turn to a deep respect for nature and the poor soldiers of World War One. Just think: the only stable things in your life are the steady rumble of guns and the contaminated earth beneath your feet. How can anyone love that slow, sticky earth that slows you down, gets inside your skin and spits with gunfire? Because, when you finally die, she is your only loyal companion.

Remarque (originally Erich Paul Remark) was born in Germany and conscripted into the army in 1917, aged just 18. After being wounded five times, the final shrapnel wound caused such serious damage that he spent the rest of the war in a military hospital. With first hand knowledge, Remarque has written a fantastic fictional novel from the perspective of a 20 year-old German boy named Paul Bäumer. Paul volunteers to join the German army with his classmates and the book follows the course of the war and the subtle reduction of the group's number. It is a realistic novel that is straight to the point about conveying the horror of war.

One of the most interesting aspects of this book is the German perspective - I have never before read about the war from any perspective other than that of the British soldier. In British books, the German soldiers live comfortable and securely at the Western front and so they do in this book. Often Bäumer and his friends feast off goose, roast pork and on one occasion, lobster! The length of time that the German soldiers seem to stay at the front also seems significantly less than that of the British soldiers and the level of organisation and regulation seems much higher. However, ultimately, the situation is the same - Paul faces injury, death and inhumanity on a massive scale, on a daily basis.

Three things struck me about this novel: the feeling of comradeship, the brutality of the German forces and the subtle style of Remarque. Comradeship is a huge theme in this book, but the relationships that Paul has with his classmates appear closer than the relationship between two lovers. It becomes most apparent when Paul visits his family whilst on leave; the tone of the book becomes cold as the reader senses the isolation that the soldier feels from life at home. The brutality of the German forces is something unusual and it led me to feel much less sympathy for the ruthless soldiers; there are descriptions of a German counter attack on the French in which they stab the fleeing backs of enemy forces and chase them back into their own trench. This inhumane description probably matches the actions of the British but never before have I read about the ruthless murders of Germans at British hands. It was an honest and brave subject to include - probably giving more reason for Hitler to ban the text in the 1930s.

Finally, Remarque's subtle style; the way he writes is impressive and almost beautiful. I only became aware of it in the final chapters of the novel when I suddenly realised that Germany had gone from being a triumphant force feasting on succulent meat every night to a weak, deteriorating minute force. We see this gradual change in the character of Paul and in the final pages the reader slowly and sadly realises he has become the last surviving member of his class.

However, I don't want to be misleading; Remarque goes out of his way to convey the horrific, brutal truth about war, about men who "run with both their feet cut off", "without mouths, without jaws, without faces". The detachment from normal civilian life, the psychological effects of the guns and the comradeship are all included as in every good war novel; this is, without a doubt, a stunning account of war. However, the greatest war novel of all time? It is debatable. Admittedly, I don't know whether I have encountered a better one (not one from an author who saw the events with his own eyes) but the fact that it is a translation sometimes makes it hard to comprehend. Ultimately, I would like to read more of this genre before making such a definite judgement on a literary position so high.

Please comment if you have anything to add to this review of "All Quiet on the Western Front".

The Modern Way to Win a Woman

Run, Fat Boy, Run


Directed by David Schwimmer

Dennis (Simon Pegg) is your average bachelor; not in perfect shape, living in a filthy environment, and alone. He is satisfied with a career as a security guard in a women's lingerie shop (which seems to attract criminal transvestites) and regularly forgets his keys, says things he doesn't mean and embarrasses himself in front of the one woman he aims to impress. Run, Fat Boy, Run is the story of this typically useless man as he attempts to win the heart of his former fiance in a not so traditional way.

This film should be credited for its simplicity, its realism and for the completely down-to-earth approach that the director takes in producing a typical romantic comedy. Filled with your regular stereotypes (beautiful lady, worthless single father, stuck up (yet attractive) romantic opposition) they are unusually played with unique and believable character.

Dennis, having left his fiance, Libby (Thandie Newton), five years previously, decides that he is going to run a marathon in order to prove himself to her. Her new boyfriend, Whit (Hank Azaria) is toned to perfection, trained both physically and mentally, and yet slightly flabby Dennis is determined to run alongside him. With the help of a friend, he accidentally earns himself a charity entry, running for Erectile Dysfunction Awareness, and with a pair of skimpy shorts and a flash pair of trainers bought him by his landlord, he sets out to train in just two weeks.

Does he manage it? Why, of course. With a few minor hiccups, it is obvious from the very start that the low-life, part-time Dad will run and achieve his goal with the image of lady and son in mind. It is these elements of predictable cheese that make it of the romantic comedy genre. However, Schwimmer gives it a unique and realistic edge by ensuring girl and boy don't quite reach that happily ever after - men need to know that running miles for us on a whim won't make us theirs forever! There is also a good range of British humour; admittedly a few awful moments where the humour completely fails. Yet, the impressive performances of Pegg, Azaria and Newton make up for it, as well as the good range of music to go with it. If I were to rate the film out of 5, I'd grant it a satisfactory 4. It's an entertaining film, with a good portion of British humour with the always-loveable hopeless pursuit of romance by a not-so-perfect man.

However, if I were to have one complaint, it would be the rating; rated 12, it should, in my opinion be rated 15. There is frequent bad language (which I am aware 12 year olds have no difficulty in using) and some sexual references that I was quite discomforted by knowing there were young people surrounding me. Yet, I suppose I should ultimately leave it up to the experts to decide. So, on a lighter note, if you can think of no other reason to go and watch this film other than Hank Azaria talcing his unmentionables, let that be it. It will no doubt entertain you, and if you are a Simon Pegg fan, it won't let you down.

Please comment if you have anything to add to this review of "Run, Fat Boy, Run".