Irene

Κρίμα που ο Zweig δεν έγραψε περισσότερα βιβλία που η θεματολογία τους να μου φαίνεται ενδιαφέρον. Το συγκεκριμένο βιβλίο είναι ένα ιστορικό βιβλίο, όλα τα γεγονότα και τα πρόσωπα είναι αληθινά(οι λεπτομέρειες πιθανόν όχι) και περιέχει τις μεγάλες ώρες της ανθρωπότητας με βάση τον Zweig. Πόσο όμορφα γράφει αυτός ο άνθρωπος μα πόσο όμορφα. 

Τα ιστορικά γεγονότα περιγράφονται με χρονολογική σειρά

❤️Πρώτο μεγαλό γεγονός για την ανθρωπότητα είναι η <<Κατάληψη του="" Βυζαντίου="">>. Με συγκίνησε υπερβολικά ο τρόπος που έγραψε για αυτό το γεγονός, με έκανε να δακρύσω και δακρύζω σπάνια. Το Βυζάντιο το εγκατέλειψαν οι Ευρωπαίοι και η εκκλησία, είδαν μία τρομερή αυτοκρατορία να πέφτει και δεν έκαναν τιπότα για να βοηθήσουν.

-Δεύτερο ιστορικό γεγονός που περιγράφει με όνομα <<Πορεία προς="" την="" αθανασία="">> είναι η ανακάλυψη της Αμερικής αλλα συγκεκριμένα την ανακάλυψη του Ειρηνικού Ωκεανού. Δεν γράφει για τον Κολόμβο αλλά για τον Βάσκο Νούνιες ντε Μπαλμπόα. Δεν γνώριζα καθόλου για το συγκεκριμένο γεγονός άρα έψαξα λίγα πράγματα παραπάνω στο Google. 

❤️Τρίτο μεγάλο γεγονός είναι η <<Ανάσταση του="" Georg="" Friedrich="" Händel="">> Συγκινήθηκα ακόμη μια φορά. Διαβάζοντας για τα τελευταία χρόνια του Χαιντελ που τόσο όμορφα περιέγραψε ο Τσβαιχ. Στο συγκεκριμένο μέρος του βιβλίου φάνηκε ιδιαίτερα το λογοτεχνικό μεγαλείο του. Ο τρόπος που περιγράφει το κομμάτι που συνέθεσε ο Χαιντελ με το όνομα ‘‘Μεσίας'' είναι πραγματικά λυρίκος και η περιγραφή των τελευταίων στιγμών του Χαιντελ, είναι πανέμορφη και ταυτόχρονα ανατριχιαστική, σε κάνει να αισθάνεσαι ότι είσαι εκεί, δεν παρακολουθείς απλώς αύτον τον άνθρωπο που σβήνει αλλά ζεις την τελευταία στιγμή του μαζί του.

Δεν θάτανε προτιμότερο να μείνει παράλυτο το κορμί του, παρά να παραλύσει ολόκληρη η ψυχή του όπως τώρα...... Καλύτερα να πεθάνω, παρά να σέρνω μια σκιά του εαυτού μου μες την παγεράδα και το κενό αυτού του κόσμου.

Αλλά το αλκοόλ φέρνει αηδία σε εκείνον που γνώρισε το θείο και αγνό μεθύσι της δημιουργίας. Καμιά φορά ακόμα, κοιτάζει από τη γέφυρα του Τάμεση τα βουβά και μελανά νερά του ποταμού και αναρωτιέται μήπως θα ήταν καλύτερα να γλυτώσει μια για πάντα απ'όλα με μια κίνηση αποφασιστική. Να μην υποφέρει πια το βάρος αυτού του κενού, να γλυτώσει από τη φρίκη της μοναξιάς, από την εγκατάλειψη των ανθρώπων και του Θεού.

Και ο άσημος δημιουργός ενός αθάνατου ύμνου, αναπαύτηκε τέλος στη τιμητική κρύπτη της πατρίδας του, ύστατη παρηγοριά ένός ανθρώπου που υπήρξε ποιητής μονάχα για μια νύχτα.

Τα παιδιάστικα χρόνια του, χλωμά και θλιμμένα, ο πατέρας, η μητέρα, ο αδερφός, η γυναίκα, τρία ψύχουλα φιλίας, δύο κύπελλα χαράς, ένα όνειρο δόξας, ένα μάτσο ντροπή. Και το ορμητικό κύμα των αναμνήσεων εξακολουθεί να κυλάει στις αρτηρίες.

Και τότε για πρώτη φορά, νιώθει όλο τον ανθρώπινο πόνο που ουρλιάζει μέσα στο κόσμο. Ακούει τη φωνή  μικρών και των αδύναμων, των γυναικών που δόθηκαν άδικα, των κοριτσιών που χλευάζουν τον ίδιο τους τον ευατό, των ταπεινωμένων που δεν γελούν ποτέ τα χείλη τους, των παιδιών που κλαίνε με λιγμούς και παράπανο και όλων των ξεπεσμένων.

Ο πόνος γίνεται χαρά, η ευτυχία πόνος για αυτόν που στο θάνατο γνώρισε τη ζωή

Πέφτει γονατιστός, σα σφαγμένος όλος ο πόνος του κόσμου μπήκε μέσα του. Σπαράζει το κορμί του και ένας λευκός αφρός βρέχει τα χείλη του. Παραμορφόνονται τα χαρακτηριστικά του, αλλά πάνω στο σάβανο του πέφτουν δάκρυα ευτυχία. Γιατί αυτή τη στιγμή που τον άγγιξαν τα πικρά χείλη του θανάτου η καρδιά του νιώθει τη γλύκα της ζωής.

Μπορώ να πω ότι η Francoise Sagan όπως και η Marguerite Duras αλλά και η Josephine Hart γράφουν για ένα συγκεκριμένο κοινό. Δυστυχώς στην συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση σίγουρα δεν ανήκω σε αυτό! 

Απλός, λιτός αλλά και όμορφος ο τρόπος γραφής της. Όσο αφορά την πλοκή του βιβλίου με άφησε αρκετά αδιάφορη, άλλα περίμενα είναι η αλήθεια, ωστόσο έχω μια φίλη που θα το εκτιμήσει κυρίως γιατί θα δει σίγουρα τον ευατό της στην πρωταγωνίστρια.

Η ιστορία περιγράφει την ερωτική περιπέτεια μιας φοιτήτριας δηλαδή μιλάμε για μια γυναίκα γύρω στα 20 και του θείου του φίλου της, από την πλευρά της φοιτήτριας. Αρκετά ανώριμη πρωταγονίστρια, ίσως όχι ανώριμη  με τον ίδιο τρόπο με τα 20χρόνα της εποχής μας, ωστόσο για τα δικά μου δεδομένα η άνεση που μεγάλωσε και της πρόσφεραν οι γονείς της φαινόταν αρκετά.  Κακομαθημένη, αναποφάσιστη και μπερδεμένη. Ακόμα και για μια φίλη της σε μία σελίδα γράφει ότι τη βρίσκει ανυπόφορη και στην ακριβώς επόμενη πως την αγαπάει. Αν το διάβαζα στα 16 μου πιθανόν να μου άρεσε αλλά μετά τα 18 μου το συγκεκριμένο μυθιστόρημα δεν είχε καμία ελπίδα. Αναφέρει τον Σαρτρ κάποια στιγμή και πόσο ενθουσιασμένη είναι να τον διαβάσει και μπορώ να πω ότι αυτό απο μόνο του εξηγεί πάρα πολλά! 

Το ‘‘controversial opinion'' μου είναι ότι δεν αγαπήσε αυτόν άντρα περισσότερο από ότι την αγάπησε αυτός. Δηλαδή καθόλου, δεν μιλάμε για αγάπη, για ενθουσιασμό και ενδιαφέρον οκ, έρωτα ναι, ερωτική και σεξουαλική έλξη ναι, πάθος ναι, αγάπη όχι. Τον ερωτεύτηκε, όπως ακριβώς την ερωτεύτηκε και αυτός. ‘Ενας επιπόλαιος έρωτας με μία αρκετά κακομαθημένη πρωταγωνίστρια αυτό ήταν το storyline.

Once again I don't remember much about the movie since over a decade has passed since I watched it, but I can say that once again I feel like the book is better than the movie. I remember that the movie was really focused on the supernatural themes while the book not so much, which as someone who isn't a fan of supernatural I really really liked.


The good: 
I liked the realistic approach and the neuropsychological approach it had. For over half of the book we still not into the supernatural elements of what is happening.  Instead of jumping straight into the demon possession, it slowly builds the story psychologically. Great choice if you ask me. Rare to happen but I actually liked some of the characters, the police guy and Karl. Father Karras was also an interesting character. A man who battles with his faith basically and a psychiatrist at that!!! Now I wasn't familiar with the religion (Jesuits) that was presented so I had once again to google stuff, in my defence I am not familiar with Catholicism so it was interesting to search and find that Catholicism has a bunch of other ‘‘faiths'' inside. I also liked the sick descriptions, unsettling and disturbing one's which he wrote them well,  he balanced them because they weren't constant, it wasn't one after the other then again the same circle, which I have seen some thriller books doing it. The story closed beautifully with a great ending!



The bad:
In the beginning for the very few first pages I was rolling my eyes, it felt like the author was trying a bit too hard to sound literary,  when he couldn't pull it off. Thankfully after the first few pages he sticks with simple prose. 


Uhm yeah another thing that hasn't to do with the book per say but how delusional the author(negative for me at least) was that apparently the author was trying to approach people to believe in something and he was shocked to found out that church/religion people didn't see it, well I think he is delusional to believe with some of the things he writes any religion would be ‘‘oh a great literary pick to approach people to believe in a higher existence''. First of all the book has some graphic disturbing scenes that I doubt someone strongly religious would be able to pass through casually, second of all the only way someone would be able to turn ‘‘religious'' based on this book is mainly through fear, I don't know about Catholicism but you don't approach religion by fear. They did that for centuries when church was a huge political power and they did it exactly for that, political reason. I am pretty sure that in the late 20th century every religion who respects itself(I hope there are more than few) would find this offensive. 

Would I recommend it? For thrillers/horrors it depends to the person, I know some people who would enjoy it but I also know some people that would feel like throwing it into the trash. Overall I personally liked it, I found it interesting, I liked the approach, I liked the writing besides the beginning, I liked some of the characters which is rare and I liked the ending!!!

I loved it. I truly loved it. I don't remember much about the movie, only some scenes, so I feel like I liked it more than Hitchcock's film. The book is a lot more psychological than the film, as far as I remember at least. You get a better view of Norman's psyche.

I can see why someone wouldn't find it as good as the film and not as entertaining and maybe even a little boring but that was not the case for me. The writing was simple, if you expect long disturbing descriptions and chilling details then that's definitely not the book you are looking for but if you expect a good psychological thriller go for it. 








My speculations/Rambling: 
I searched about what others thought about the diagnosis of Norman and most seem to think DID or Dissociative identity disorder but I personally wouldn't stay in that alone. I would say that Norman had  Schizzoaffective Disorder(depressive type) and some type of sexual dysfunction disorder.     Norman grew up with a domineering mother that hated men or at least talked lowly of them since her husband left her and he hated her son as well for being one. She was abusive and she did everything to destroy her son's self esteem, we see that the word “incompetent” triggers something to Norman and so does any sort of nudity even his own, especially his dick the sexual disorder is not surprising at all.     His mother didn't stay at her hate of men and we can see from when Norman blacks out and shifts to her that she hated women as well, his mother would call some women sluts/whores/vulgar etc etc. At the end of the book we find out that Norman crossdressed even before he murdered his mother and I support that the reason behind this, is that the only person in Norman's life was his mom,  I mean it quite literally. His mother had made him hate everyone, including himself, in Norman's world his mother was the only sane, the only logical, the only person actually existing, the only decent human being since all the others “were all the same” so he wanted to become her, not becoming like her since that would mean that he was still Norman and existing as himself was not existing at all.    Now in my opinion Norman's breakdown happens when he sees his mother and the other guy having sex, that's when he murders for the first time, that's when reality and hallucinations start to blur completely for him.  He creates 1 persona subconsciously(his mother) and 1(his younger self) persona consciously and of course he has Norman himself as well. Norman has hallucinations, delusions, he has mood swings going from “poor girl to-> well nevermind such a slut” , disorganized thoughts and unusual behavior. He studies psychology when he is Norman, he says that his mother(who is dead) is mentally unwell, he has read about it but he can't do much about it because they will lock her up.    A person with schizzoaffective disorder is not unlikely to have DID, rare but not as rare as schizophrenia and Did. Norman was always living in his own reality, even when he was his “normal” self. He didn't had moments of clarity, his “logical” thinking was inside his paranoia. The “sane” Norman believed his mother was alive, he made her bed, he cleaned her room and he even “moved” her to the basement to hide her, even though he was hiding his other persona without being able to acknowledge it,  the “sane” Norman believed his mother was mentally unstable.Also even though Robert Bloch doesn't add other bodies, from the way he wrote the situation it's quite clear that besides his first murder and the 2 murders we follow in this story he has committed murder similar to those again. He was very familiar in how to destroy evidence and how to get rid of the bodies. In his case of his first murder he didn't had to do any of those, so the familiarity comes from other similar experience, so we can assume that “Norma” had killed other people who lived in the hostel before that. I am planning to go through all the points I highlated and try to write all the notes in a notebook to psychoanalyze his behaviors better.”

Όχι από τα καλυτέρα του αλλά αρκετά καλό! Έξυπνο, καθόλου προβλεπόμενο και ευχάριστο! Πολύ καλό για παραλία και διακοπές. 

Ξεκινάει με μία απλή εξαφάνιση, ωστοσό καταλήγει σε δολοφονία. Τον δολοφόνο δεν υπάρχει περίπτωση να τον βρεις γιατί ο Μαρής του δείνει ελάχιστη βάση κατά την διάρκεια του μυθιστορήματος, μέχρι τις τελευταιές σελίδες που πλέον δεν έχει μείνει κανένας. Πολύ όμορφα γραμμένο και πολύ καλογραμμένοι χαρακτήρες.

Καθυστέρησα αρκετά να το τελειώσω το συγκεκριμένο. Θεωρώ ότι η βαθμολόγια αντικειμενικά είναι πιο κοντά στο 3 αλλά το πρώτο και το τελευταίο μέρος ήταν αρκετά καλά. 

Λοιπόν το πρώτο μέρος του βιβλίου μου άρεσε αρκετά. Ακολουθούμε  3 κορίτσια που κατάφεραν να το σκάσουν απο το χαρέμι του Αλή Πασά, διαβάζουμε για αυτές από όταν τις σκλάβωσαν μέχρι που φτάνουν σε μία ηλικία που έχουν κάνει οικογένειες και τα παιδιά τους έχουν μεγαλώσει. Μου άρεσαν και οι χαρακτήρες και η γραφή, γενικότερα το ευχαριστήθηκα αύτο το κομμάτι του ιστορικού μυθιστορηματος. Ωστόσο το δεύτερο κομμάτι ήταν άθλιο. Δεν χρειαζόταν και πρωσοπικά ήταν το μέρος που σκέφτηκα να το παρατήσω. Ήμαστε στο παρόν και ακολουθούμε μία πρόγονο από μία από αυτές τις γυναίκες του πρώτου μέρος. Ο ρυθμός αυτού του κομματιού της ιστορίας ήταν πολύ περίεργος, γινόταν πάρα πολλά πράγματα πάρα πολύ γρήγορα. Χρεωκοπία, έγκλημα, άλλο έγκλημα, ταξίδι, έρωτας, αστυνομία, άλλος έρωτας, ξαφνικά χρήματα κτλ. Με αποσυντόνισε πλήρως όλο αυτό το κομμάτι του βιβλίου. Το τελευταίο μέρος ήταν ιστορικά γεγονότα σχετικά με την Τουρκοκρατία και συγκεκριμένα για τον Αλή Πασά στα Γιάννενα. Πάλι καλά υπήρχε και αυτό και έκλεισε κάπως ωραία.

Από τα καλύτερα βιβλία που διάβασα φέτος.

Είναι το ημερολόγιο ενός κοριτσιού το οποίο ήταν μέλος της κομμουνιστικής νεολαίας υπό καθεστώς Στάλιν, πέρα από την προσωπική της ζωή περιγράφει και το κλήμα που ακολούθησε στην Ρωσία όταν βγήκε ο Στάλιν, που έπιαναν τους κομμουνιστές που είχαν υποστηρίξει τον Τρότσκι, αλλά και την έφοδο τον Γερμανών στην Ρωσία. Οι τελευταίες σελίδες είναι ότι πιο ανατριχιαστικό έχω διαβάσει σε μεγάλο χρονικό διάστημα. Κάτι που θέλω να πω σίγουρα είναι ότι η Νίνα Κοστερίνα ΔΕΝ ήταν ένα συνηθισμένο κορίτσι, δεν ήταν συνηθισμένο κορίτσι του τότε και σίγουρα όχι του σήμερα, κρίμα που η ίδια δεν το είχε καταλάβει. Πολύ δυναμικός χαρακτήρας, δύσκολη και άκαμπτη ωστόσο είχε ηγετικές ικανότητες και για αυτό το λόγο έβγαινε ως αντιπρόσωπος και στο σχολείο της και στην οργάνωση που ήταν μέλος. Θάρρος, τόλμη, πυγμή, αρχές, δυνατά πιστεύω και ένα συναίσθημα αλληλεγγύης προς τους γύρω της. Μπορεί να μην μπορούσε να μπει εύκολα στη θέση των άλλων αλλά αυτό δεν την σταματούσε από το να νοιάζεται για αυτούς και να προσπαθεί για κάτι καλύτερο. Σημείωσα σχεδόν όλο το βιβλίο, από τα βιβλία που διάβαζε ως τα περίπλοκα συναισθήματα που είχε από έφηβη ως που έγινε ενήλικας και ερωτεύτηκε έντονα για πρώτη φορά. 

Τα τελευταία γράμματα μου σπάραξαν την ψυχή και το γράμμα που έστειλε ο συνταγματάρχης στην μητέρα της με λύγισε τελείως. ‘' Η κόρη σας...πολεμώντας για την σοσιαλιστική πατρίδα, πιστή στο στρατιωτικό όρκο, αφού έδωσε δείγματα ηρωισμού και ανδρείας, έπεσε εκτελώντας πολεμική αποστολή τον Δεκέμβριο του 1941'' 

Δεν μπορώ να γράψω όλο το βιβλίο που σημείωσα ωστόσο θα γράψω μερικά από τα τελευταία πράγματα που κατέγραψε που είναι αρκετά για να δείξουν τον χαρακτήρα αυτής της κοπέλας. 

‘'Θέλω να ζήσω! Όσο και να φαίνεται παράδοξο, έτσι είναι: πάω στο μέτωπο, ακριβώς γιατί είναι τόσο ωραίο να ζει κανείς, γιατί τόσο θέλω να ζήσω, να δουλέψω να δημιουργήσω.. να ζήσω, να ζήσω!'' 

‘'Η θέση μου είναι στο μέτωπο. Η ζωή τσακίστηκε, η ζωή απότομα άλλαξε πορεία. Πρέπει να πάρει κανείς απόφαση και πρώτα από όλα να είσαι τίμιος απέναντι στον ίδιο σου τον εαυτό σου, να μην προσπαθήσεις να προφυλάξεις δειλά το κεφάλι σου από την εχθρική μπόρα'' 

Όχι από τα καλύτερα του Μαρή που έχω διαβάσει, ωστόσο ήταν σίγουρα έξυπνο και ευχάριστο. 

Ιδανικό για παραλία. Χαλαρό, ψυχαγωγικό μυστήριο. 


“Οι αναγνώστες μου παίρνουν ακριβώς αυτό που τους δίνω. Ψυχαγωγία και τίποτα περισσότερο” 

Δεν νομίζω ότι αυτός ο άνθρωπος έχει γράψει κάτι κακό, μέτριο ναι αλλά όλα τα μυθιστορήματα του είναι απολαυστικά και περνάς ευχάριστα την ώρα σου. 

 Θεωρώ ότι η τέχνη μπορεί να διαχωριστεί από τον καλλιτέχνη, ωστόσο ορισμένες φορές ο καλλιτέχνης δεν θέλει να διαχωρίσει τον εαυτό του από αυτή. Θα ξεκινήσω λέγοντας ότι πέρα από τον πρωταγωνιστή που δεν κάνει ευθύ μισογυνιστικά σχόλια, όλοι οι υπόλοιποι κάνουν. Η ειρωνεία με το ελληνικό εξώφυλλο είναι ότι έχει ένα γυναικείο σώμα στο εξώφυλλο, όταν σχεδόν όλοι οι χαρακτήρες σιχαίνονται τις γυναίκες. 
Παρακολουθούμε τις ζωές μερικών αηδιαστικών και αντιπαθητικών(φυσικά μιλάμε για αστούς) Παριζιάνων σε διάστημα περίπου 5 ημερών. 480 σελίδες για 5 ήμερες. Ο Σαρτρ αγγίζει όσο πιο επιφανειακά μπορεί με τους χαρακτήρες που γράφει τον φόβο της γήρανσης, την ελευθερία,την έκτρωση και αντικατοπτρίζει τέλεια τον μέσο αριστερό στο πρόσωπο του πρωταγωνιστή, το μόνο που έκανε και καλά εν τελεί ο Σαρτρ στο συγκεκριμένο. 

Ανάλυση χαρακτήρων:  Μπορις: 20χρονών που διατηρεί σχέση με μία 40+ χρονών γυναίκα που δεν χάνει ευκαιρία να αποκαλεί γριά, η 40χρονη είναι γραμμένη να λιώνει, να πεθαίνει για το 20χρονο που είναι ξεκάθαρο ότι του προκαλεί αηδία και που και η ίδια αποκαλεί μωρό. Ο 20 χρόνος λοιπόν αυτός πέρα από τον μισογυνισμό του(αποκαλεί τις γυναίκες κότες, χαζές με έμμεσο τρόπο, γυναικούλες) έχει και μία απέραντη ανασφάλεια να μεγαλώσει, θεωρεί ότι στα 25 τελειώνουν τα τιτάνια. Αυτός ο χαρακτήρας υποτίθεται ότι είναι μορφωμένος, ότι ήταν από τους καλύτερους μαθητές που είχε ο πρωταγωνιστής μας. 

Δανιήλ: Ο πιο αηδιαστικός χαρακτήρας που εν τελεί φαίνεται να ήταν ο πραγματικός πρωταγωνιστής του Σαρτρ. Ο Δανιήλ είναι στα 35 και είναι ένας ομοφυλόφιλος παιδεραστής που υποτίθεται ότι σιχαίνεται τον εαυτό του, απλώς σαν κάθε παιδεραστή η αηδία που νιώθουν ποτέ δεν τους ωθεί στην αυτοκτονία, πάντα τους οδηγεί να εκμεταλλευτούν παιδιά!! :) Μερικά από τα σχόλια που κάνει αυτό το ον για τις γυναίκες: ‘'μικρή τσουλίτσα που ήταν φουσκωμένη από εφηβεία'' ‘'οι βρώμες'' ‘'Αλήθεια κατουράν αίμα κάθε φεγγάρι και σαν να μη έφτανε αυτό γεννοβολάν σαν σαλάχια, σκέφτηκε με αηδία πως θα την έβλεπε απόψε΄΄ Έχουμε περιγραφές που πηγαίνει στην ‘'πιάτσα'' που βρίσκονται αγοράκια που έχουν ανάγκη από χρήματα, στέγη, φροντίδα και συναντάει έναν νέο που κάποτε εκμεταλλεύτηκε άλλα δεν του κάνει πια γιατί χόντρυνε και μεγάλωσε. Ο Σαρτρ κάνει υπερπροσπάθειες να σε κάνει να λυπηθείς αυτό το ον.  Πέρα από αυτό, σε αυτόν τον τύπο ο πρωταγωνιστής μας λέει μπράβο και ότι δεν μπορεί να τον κρίνει. Αυτός ο παιδεραστής εν τέλει θα παντρευτεί μία γυναίκα, η γυναίκα προφανώς και δεν ξέρει η οποία θα γεννήσει αγοράκι! Σιχάθηκα τον εαυτό μου διαβάζοντας το τέλος. 
Στην αρχή κάπου μία από τις γυναίκες του βιβλίου λέει για τους παιδεραστές κάτι του τύπου: ‘'Αυτοί τουλάχιστον έχουν το κουράγιο να μην είναι όπως όλος ο κόσμος'' Αν ο σκοπός σου είναι να μην είσαι σαν τους άλλους και ο τρόπος για να ξεχωρίσεις είναι να υπερασπίζεσαι την παιδεραστία ή χειρότερα να εκμεταλλεύεσαι σεξουαλικά παιδιά, εύχομαι καλό ψόφο. 





Τώρα για τον χαρακτήρα του πρωταγωνιστή μας, ένας απλώς υποκριτής. Δεν ξέρει τι θέλει, τι επιδιώκει και άλλα λέει και άλλα κάνει.  Ο πιο λογικός χαρακτήρας του βιβλίου είναι ο αδερφός του Ματιε, ο οποίος μιλάει για την υποκρισία του χαρακτήρα του Ματιε υπέροχα:''Είσαι παρ'οτι και να λες, παντρεμένος, έχεις ένα κομψό διαμερισματάκι, παίρνεις σε τακτικές ημερομηνίες ένα αρκετά στρογγυλό μισθό, δεν έχεις καμιά ανησυχία για το μέλλον γιατί το Κράτος σου εξασφαλίζει μια σύνταξη και σου αρέσει αυτή η ζωή,ήρεμη, ρυθμισμένη. Η ελευθερία συνίστατο στο να κοιτάζεις κατά πρόσωπο τις καταστάσεις που δημιουργείς με την απόλυτη θέληση σου και να δέχεσαι τις ευθύνες σου. Αλλά ασφαλώς δεν έχεις την ίδια γνώμη, καταδικάζεις την καπιταλιστική κοινωνία, κι όμως είσαι υπάλληλος σε αυτή την κοινωνία, διακηρύττεις την καταρχήν συμπάθεια σου προς τους κομμουνιστές αλλά αποφεύγεις επιμελώς να δεσμευθείς, δεν ψήφισες ποτέ σου. Περιφρονείς την αστική τάξη και ωστόσο είσαι αστός, γιος και αδερφός αστών και ζεις σαν ένας από εμάς.΄΄ Κάποια στιγμή έχει και ο ίδιος ο Ματιε μία στιγμή κρίσης ειλικρίνειας:  ‘'Μου αρέσουν τα πράσινα ριντώ μου, μου αρέσει να παίρνω αέρα το βράδυ, στο μπαλκόνι μου και δεν θα ήθελα αυτό να αλλάξει, μου αρέσει να καταφέρομαι κατά του καπιταλισμού και δεν θα ήθελα να τον καταργήσουν γιατί δε θα είχα πια με τι να αγανακτήσω, μου αρέσει να νιώθω πως είμαι ακατάδεχτος, μου αρέσει να λέω όχι πάντα οχι και θα φοβόμουν μήπως δοκίμαζαν να φτιάξουν στα σοβαρά έναν κόσμο υποφερτό γιατί θα ήμουν υποχρεωμένος να λέω ναι και να κάνω όπως οι άλλοι'' 

Θα ήθελα να σχολιάσω παραπάνω αλλά έγραψα ήδη αρκετά. Νιώθω αηδία, πραγματική αηδία με το τέλος. 

Too long for what it had to offer. Overall I think it's an average/okayish thriller. You can read it easily on a beach and you can enjoy it, but like I said too long for what it had to offer so you just get tired/bored of it. 

The premise of this book like it says on the cover it's three little girls one bad one good one dead but in reality one of them isn't a little girl she is 18. It is supposed to be a deep, complex story but it fails to be, even though it has serious events and themes in it. 

I expected something completely different, I got something else.

The novel starts with a preface that gives you the idea as a reader that you are going to read a real story, based on true events. The preface like the epilogue at the end are written so convincingly but the events on between read more like a story. The book is written like a diary without dates. The first half of the book goes very slow, after we reach the middle the pace changes and in the last pages, you don't catch a break. If it wasn't for the epilogue I would be lost about a lot of things. The epilogue explains everything. 


The first half of the book is mainly descriptions of the 2 friends, the sea,  the weather, their duck hunting, the places they visit, the people there, the sea, the “yacht”(boat) etc etc. I got bored in this part, it felt tiresome and I was thinking about giving it up since I had a difficult time with the language and the vocabulary that was used as well. In the second half we finally see the more adventurous part and it's easier to follow.


The author was  prophetic about  Germany and their intentions. Written in 1903 before WW1. The book reads as his way to make a statement to his country. The purpose of the book after a point, was as clear as it gets.


The title makes perfect sense since our protagonist solves the “riddle” after he passes through the sand and hides.”

Would I recommend this to anyone? No.

First of all I will begin by saying how much some people have misrepresented this woman's work. 

Most of the book is based on historical facts and you can understand from her commentary that she actually cared.  There is a comment in the beginning from Gloria Steinem for this book ‘‘This book is the personal, portable Andrea Dworkin. She is both intimate and analytical, and perfoms the special miracle of writing from great anger but never from vengeance.''


Let's begin with the introduction of the book, in the introduction she speak of how much she struggled to get her work out there, how much she struggled economically because of her views, how they expected from her to filter her beliefs to be able to write, besides that she also comments on her dad who seemed to be a normal man in a time that to be a normal and logical man wasn't the norm. 

‘'The situation was that I could not get my work published. So I took to public speaking, not the extemporaneous exposition of thoughts or the outpouring of feelings, but crafted prose that would inform, persuade, disturb, cause recognition, sanction rage.”
 
 
 “I was offered 1.5k to write an article on the use of amphetamines by suburban women. I was to say that this use of drugs constituted a hedonistic rebellion against the dull conventions of sterile housewife, that they use those drugs to turn on, swing and have a wonderful new lifestyle. I told the editor that I suspected women used amphetamines to get through miserable days. I suggested, that I ask the women who use the drugs and why they use them. I was told flat out that the article would say what fun it was.”

.  “During the years if doing work he disliked, he made a vow that his children would be educated as fully as possible and, no matter what it took from him, no matter what kind of commitment or work or money, his children would become whatever they wanted.”
 
 “I didn't know why he didn't make a distinction between his girl child and his boy child but he didn't. From the beginning he gave me books to read, and talked about all his ideas with me and watered every ambition that I had so that those ambitions would live and be nourished and grow.”  

At some point later on, in the book she suggests that the age of consent should be lowered and people translate to being like De Beauvoir. I searched the age of consent on USA in 70s and it seemed to be 18 in most states. What I understood by her suggestion it was that if a 16 year old girl had sex with her boyfriend she shouldn't be on a trial, her boyfriend probably would get just a pat on the shoulder while the consequences for her would be completely different, besides the fact that she would be treated like she wad ‘'slut'' written on her forehead. 

Now something else that was even in the beginning of the book was this: 

“There is no freedom or justice in exchanging the female role for the male role. There is no freedom or justice or even common sense in developing a male sexual sensibility, a sexual sensibility which is aggressive, competitive, objectifying, quantity oriented. To believe that freedom or justice for women, can be found in mimicry of male sexuality is to delude oneself and to contribute to the oppression of one's sisters.” 
 
 “I want to suggest to you that a commitment to sexual quality with males, that is to uniform character as of motion or surface, is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered. I want to ask you to make a different commitment, a commitment to the abolition of poverty, rape and murder.” 
 

Later on she also comments what she wants from women besides those and it's to be brave, it's to stand for other women and drop the masochism. What does she say in these 2 quotes? Basically to drop the sadomasochism acts that society has given to women and men. She is against of women becoming what they hate, she is against women acting like their rapists and becoming sadistic, she against men being sadistic OR masochistic, against men becoming like slaves, the raped or the murdered. Unfortunately Andrea Dworkin's words about this don't play out. Women who have power usually don't care about other women, they don't have no issue to act like the men you would expect them to hate, they won't stand, help or even care about other women. The men aren't there yet either. It seems instead of becoming normal, they have reversed somewhat the sadism for masochism in some instances and the only difference being that now their dick gets hard when they are abused. None of those people give a shit about others besides themselves and no one is willing to become a decent human being. 

Some quotes: 

‘' In fact, she was a breeder and an ornament, with no private or political rights, with no claim either to dignity or freedom. ‘‘
 
 '' In the abolition movement as in most movements for social change, then and now, women were the committed; women did the work that had to be done; women were the backbone and muscle that supported the whole body. But when women made claims for their own rights, they were dismissed contemptuously, ridiculed, or told that their own struggle was self-indulgent, secondary to the real struggle''

‘'Any man who is your your comrade will be committed to laying his body, his life, on the mine so that you will be subjected to that indignity no longer. ‘' 

“Rape is no excess, no aberration, no accident, no mistake it embodies sexuality as the culture defines it” 

‘'We so know that had a black woman been raped either by blacks or whites, her rape would go unprosecuted, unremarked ‘' 

“The police told her she was lucky not to have been murdered. But that remains an unanswered question in her mind. Simple murder would not have have involved the horror, the insulting of violation of personhood, the degradation, the devastating affront to the dignity, and the sensation of bodily filth that time has not washed off. “ 

“For one thousand years in China all women were systematically crippled so that they were carnal propert; so that they were entirely dependent on men for food, water, shelter and clothing; so that they could not walk or walk away, or unite against the sadism of their male opressors” 



Now for the criticism. Andrea Dworkin suggests that men who rape are normal, in a society that boys from the day they were born have an entire system that makes them believe that they own women yes ‘'your normal'' man is a rapist. Thankfully most countries aren't like that anymore. Nothing normal about the psychosynthesis of a man who rapes if he grew up in a ‘'civilised'' society. Even if his parents failed him, he lives in a world that is widely known that your freedom stops there that mine starts. You can't force another human, you can't take from them their consent when it's not given to you. You aren't normal if you are a rapist and you most likely should never become a part of a civilised society ever again if it's a crime you have committed repetitively. Unfortunately the justice system is still pathetic. Something else that I don't agree with it's that all men actions are routed to their phalluses. Dworkin even sees that patriarchy comes down to the dick of a man and I couldn't disagree more. For someone critical of Freud, she seems to agree with his theory that the principle of humans is routed in sexual pleasure or violence, she just removes women from this theory and removes violence. Dworkin believes that a hard dick is the end goal but I believe that ego is the end goal, every sadistic act, every time that someone is power obsessed is their ego they trying to boost. Men aren't their dicks, their dicks don't control their actions or their thoughts, even if they can pretend that they are their dicks and when their dicks are hard they basically have no control of their actions the reality is that it's not true. Men are weaker when it comes to willpower but they do have willpower, if they don't use it, they choose to not use it , maybe a choice that is being made in their subconscious but still a choice. Something else that I can't but criticise is that she seemed to had a lot of blind trust, a lot of expectations from women, she shouldn't. She separated women and men and she even wrote
 “For thousands of years, in my view, women have been the only exemplars of moral and spiritual courage we have sustained life, while men have taken it” but the thing is that like I said above everything leads to someone's ego and that applies to women too. I think the last one I will comment is that somewhere she said that women should stop bringing kids in this world and the reality is I doubt she actually believed that a woman's will to become a mother will be something that she would be able to control but she said it and it seemed kind of stupid.



I enjoyed reading this. She touches so many things and she does go into depth even tho is a small book.  I think Andrea Dworkin noticed that no one care about women, murdered or raped. white or black there was no real justice. So when she wrote she wrote with anger, with repulsion about the situation and you can feel it. 

Things are different at least in here for women but you see it's a different story when it comes to children and that's the thing that personally gets me really radical.  No one actually gives a shit about pedophilia still in today's world, you would expect the things to be different but their aren't and you see in pedophilia around 1/3 to ½ to of victims are boys but even that is not enough for anyone to actually care.

If you find this book in a thrift, no matter how cheap it is DON'T BUY IT!!!

Where do I begin with the critic in this story.. It's the first book this man wrote, it attracted me because I was looking for crime novels and because the man who wrote it is or was a psychoanalyst so I was expecting a good in depth character descriptions... but no. Also Ian Rankin was one of the names in the cover writing something positive.. 

The murder takes place in about the 120 page so about in half of the book, in the first part we get one story that is supposed to be “coming of age” but it's more like, trauma, trauma and a weird pace jumping from one thing to another in each chapter. In the very beginning of the book we see our protagonist which is about 14-16 and his cousin to follow a man who tells he makes movies in his place, we get the description of the calendar on the wall with naked minor boys and then we get the description of this man putting his hand inside our protagonist shorts and touching his thigh and his crotch our protagonist doesn't comment on this, at all while he describes us how his cousin was making up shit that she can her family from his windows and they are close or smth similar... We move on from that it didn't really happened..overall we move on from a lot of things in this story like they didn't even happen... 

At the middle they find the dead girl. After they found the dead girl in the next chapter or in the next 2  a friend of our protagonist kills himself, why? because he was gay and he liked our protagonist and his father send him to a military type of school. Later on the protagonist says his friend had touched him in the way that the pedo above had but he felt guilty of his death because besically if he wasn't the object of desire for his friend, his father wouldn't send him there and he wouldn't had kill himself. Why even include this kid? For what purpose? 

Someone in the reviews said that it was easy tell who the murderer was but it wasn't. There was almost no man who didn't seem like a pedophile, physical abuser or both. Plus the actual murderer is supposed to be in custody and we never get the explanation of how he got out. 


There was no break in this story. The writing, the pace, the characters, everything was all over the place. Such a mess.


*OH and besides all of those there was also a very weird incestuous undertone between of our protagonist and his cousin and  for a big part of the story... 

I thrifted this book with a bunch of other crime one's for summer, for about 3euros each so I will say that for the money I paid it was perfect! 


The good: 
I liked the plot. I found the side of the crime really interesting, in about half of the book you can guess where it is going but you don't get the full picture of it. The writing is  simple, so even if your English vocabulary ain't great you won't have an issue. Plus the the ending was great. The story closed/finished beautifully in my opinion. 

I also appreciate the fact that the author worked together with real detectives and officers to write the book.

The bad:
Even though I loved the crime part of the story, I hated the way our main characters were written. It would have worked out if it was a TV series that the actors could be expressive but in the novel they felt soulless and not real. One of the biggest parts in modern thrillers is giving main characters depth. Unfortunately I can't say that the author achieved that in. We follow almost all the police team who works in this case, plus the ex policeman and all of them have something so stereotypical about them and because we follow them all, it feels like we know them all in a very superficial level. 

Not a bad crime novel, but not the most memorable you will read. I had fun reading it! 

Είναι το πρώτο βιβλίο που διαβάζω του Bukowski. Είχα μια ιδέα περί τίνος πρόκειται οπότε δε μπορώ να πω ότι σοκαρίστηκα ή με ξάφνιασε κάτι. 

Η ελληνική περίληψη είναι πάνω κάτω σωστή ωστόσο οι γονείς του πρωταγωνιστή δεν είναι αναίσθητοι και ο πρωταγωνιστής αν και είναι περιθωριακος, είναι αποτέλεσμα των πράξεων του σε αντίθεση με τους περιθωριακούς ανθρώπους που δουλεύει κατά διαστήματα μαζί. 

 Η ιστορία διαδραματίζεται κατά την διαρκεία του Β παγκόσμιου πολέμου, το οποίο ο Μπουκόφσκι θα μπορούσε να το εκμεταλλευτεί και να δημιουργήσει έναν παραλληλισμό για να συγκρίνει την ζωή του λευκού Αμερικανού άντρα της “εργατικής τάξης” σε σύγκριση με τους σοβιετικους της εργατικής τάξης που εκείνο τον καιρο αυτοί που είχαν μείνει πίσω πέθαναν από την πείνα. Τονίζω το χρώμα του δέρματος του πρωταγωνιστή, διότι υπαρχουν περιγραφές εργατικής τάξης που δεν επιλέγουν την δουλειά που θα κάνουν, δεν υπάρχει περίπτωση να πάρουν ποτέ προαγωγή ή να δουλέψουν σε πόστα που ο πρωταγωνιστής δουλεύει χωρίς εμπειρία και φυσικά δεν πήγαν ούτε 2 χρόνια σε κάποιο κολέγιο διότι δεν τους πλήρωσαν οι γονείς τα διδακτρα και όλοι αυτοί οι χαρακτήρες ειναι Εβραίοι, Μεξικάνοι ή μαύροι. 

Ωμή, αηδιαστική, προκλητική και ρεαλιστική ιστορία, που νομίζω αποθανατίζει τον ψυχισμό ενός  ποσοστό του αντρικού πληθυσμου εξαιρετικά!  Με εκνεύρισε  σε αρκετά σημεία και έπρεπε να σταματήσω να διαβάζω και να αναρωτηθώ τι στο διαολο διαβάζω πριν συνεχίσω. Ωστόσο εκτιμώ την ειλικρίνεια και την ωμή πραγματικότητα που σου δίνει στο πιάτο. Προς το τέλος ωστόσο, αυτός ο συνεχόμενος κύκλος που ζει ο πρωταγωνιστής αρχίζει και κουράζει και εύχεσαι να είχε τελειώσει 20 σελίδες νωρίτερα. 


Ορισμένα σημεία που μου άρεσαν διοτι εξηγούν αρκετά όσο αφορά την ψυχοσύνθεση ενός τέτοιου ατόμου: 

“Έπινα σιγά σιγά κι άρχισα να σκέφτομαι  πως θα μπορούσα να αγοράσω ένα όπλο και να ξεμπερδευω στα γρήγορα; Το ερώτημα ήταν είχα το κουραγιο;” “Το κρανίο μου έμοιαζε να είναι φτιαγμένο από βαμβακι ή στην καλύτερη περίπτωση ένα μικρό μπαλονάκι αερα. Ένιωθα το διάστημα, έναν κενό χώρο στο μυαλό μου”

“Ερωτεύτηκες ποτέ σου;”“Η αγάπη είναι για τους αληθινούς ανθρώπους”“Εσύ δεν είσαι αληθινός;”“Απεχθάνομαι τους αληθινούς ανθρώπους”“Τους απεχθάνεσαι;”“Τους μισω”

Κάτι που μου έκανε εντύπωση:
Ο πρωταγωνιστής είναι από τους πιο αντιπαθητικούς χαρακτήρες που έχω διαβάσει, ωστόσο υπάρχει μια σκηνή που ο πρωταγωνιστής είναι με μία πορνη στο δωμάτιο του και της λέει όχι, γύρω στις 3-4 φορές, σεξουαλικη παρενόχληση ουσιαστικά και ούτε καν αναφέρεται το συμβάν μετέπειτα. Δε δίνει καθόλου βάση σε αυτό και η μίζερη ζωή του συνεχίζει. Άλλο ένα σχετικά ρεαλιστικό κομμάτι όσο αφορά την αντρική σεξουαλικη παρενόχληση, νομίζω ότι δεν έχω διαβάσει άλλο συγγραφέα που το γράφει τόσο ρεαλιστικά, τόσο συνηθισμένα.

Αρκετά ενδιαφέρον η προσέγγιση που επιλέγει ο συγγραφέας για να μιλήσει για την γενετική και την πολυπλοκότητα του κάθε οργανισμού. Το βιβλίο είναι γραμμένο έτσι ώστε να γίνεται κατανοητό σε ευρύ κοινό. Περιέχοντας παραδείγματα από την καθημερινότητα μας 

Δεν είχα ιδέα για τον Rene Martial και για τον βιοχημικό δείκτη αίματος. Το πως έφτασε στο συμπέρασμα ότι η ομάδα αίματος Β «είναι η ουσία του τραμπουκισμού και της μοχθηρίας» δεν αιτιολογείται πουθενά, σχολιάζει μόνο ότι είναι σύνηθες τύπος στους Εβραίους. Με βάση τον δικό του πίνακα οι Ρώσοι και οι Πολωνοί έχουν ακόμα μεγαλύτερη πιθανότητα να έχουν ομάδα αίματος Β οπότε δεν μπορώ να κατανοήσω που ακριβως στήριξε την θεωρία του.

Ο συγγραφέας γενικώς γράφει και για τον μισογυνισμό αλλά και για τον ρατσισμό που παρατηρήθηκε κατά καιρούς από αυτούς που μελετούσαν τον άνθρωπο και τη φύση του. 

I loved it. If there wasn't a part on  it would be a 5 star.

The story is basically a letter, a letter from a man who died. Upper class man that never worked since his parents left him a huge inheritance.  He describes his emotions, the great lengths of loneliness he feels and how everything in his life turn dull, boring, nothing can give him excitement/happiness anymore. He is left with an emotion of emptiness and years pass like that until he has a wake up call. Beautifully written, beautiful descriptions, what a story. 

A childhood friend of mine has passed away. By his grave I wondered if I was sincerely mourning, if I felt any energetic sense of loss. There was no such feeling.

The mere fact that I was accustomed to getting what I wished and not having any further demands on luck had the inevitable effect of developing a sense that life was rather an uninteresting affair.

While a thousand others were laughing and chattering around me, I was searching within myself the human being I had lost sight of for so long.

The first and most important thing for me was not to become the man I was, yesterday's gentleman, the slave of the man of my class who was insensitive and lived far from the world.

Meehh. I doubt I will remember about this story in 2 months. Unremarkable and uninteresting. 

The good: 
Stefan Zweig manages to go into depth in a short story of 60 pages, very very difficult to do. His writing style is also good.

The bad: 
Stefan Zweig wrote a ridiculous number of short stories about married women having affairs and men who go after them. This story was very typical of him. 

We follow an upper class woman who cheats on her husband with a younger pianist. The reason she cheats is basically her ego. She has 2 children, which she doesn't really care about. They are the side of the side characters.

The story starts when she gets blackmailed by a woman about that affair. (the twist is predictable) Their interactions are the most interesting thing about the story. The way the upper class lady talks about this woman who sees her as a lower class citizen. How can this woman with chilblain in her hands, even talk to her? How dare she touch her?  Unfortunately the focus of the story doesn't take a social commentary route but a personalized one. 

It feels like 9.5 out of 10 novels who have as a main theme an affair (maybe I am exaraggating a bit) are from the perspective of the woman who cheats or from a man but who cheats with a married woman. It's not only something Zweig did but so many more men. From classics that men wrote and they really did love to write about married women as selfish as possible, weak to their passions and desires etc etc to modern literature, they really seem to love to try to portray only the psych of a woman who cheats and never the man's.

The Mighty Orinoco was gifted to me at the age of 4-5. I don't remember when I finally read it as a kid but I had enjoyed it, as an adult I can say that it's not my favorite of Verne's novels. 

Compared to his other works that have the scientific elements this one is just a simple story. There are Geographical information in it but that's it. No maths so no calculations, no chemistry and lack of physics. 

An enjoyable kid's story with mystery elements. 

A very short but enjoyable story, that I could relate!! 

It reminded me an age I had forgot, so so cringe. I used to idolize so easily at that age, even though I wasn't even an only child and I had friends. Stefan Zweig captures the age that you think a 20yo is wise, sophisticated, cool, you want to be like them and start to copy them even tho you are 13 very accurately! 

It also shows the mindset of 20yo man. His phenotype still exists in our world today. Men in their 20s who go after wives or older women in general because they view them as easy sex. 

We also see for a moment the mindset of a neglected wife, who sees her son as an accessory and how easily she can be manipulated with some words. 

Overall I enjoyed it, but I can't rate it higher since I don't think it's anything revolutionary. I don't think I will read it again. I am going to give it to my niece since she is going through this phase.

:/ 

I will start by saying that the main reason this book has gotten the clout it's the fault of the movie. Not the biggest fan of the movie even though Keira Knightley is one of the protagonists. The characters on the film aren't written or at least played to be as unlikeable as they actually are in the book. 






A rant: 

The book is separated in 4 parts. 

The first part is the worst one. I wanted to give up, seemed like a never ending story about spoiled brats. We follow the family of Tallis and their workers, well at least one of the people that is being sold as their worker. Not a single likeable character btw. The father is absent, he is working and taking time far away from them. The mother has migraines and her neurological system isn't at its best, she favourites her younger daughter since she sees herself in her in some way. Even though she is physically in the house with her children, she is just as absent as her husband. The older daughter is a spoiled brat, who got a degree but came back to the house, she herself doesn't know the reason at first, doing nothing. The son is living his own life but he comes to visit and the youngest daughter is a spoiled brat that no one is saying no. There is also Robbie that we are supposed to accept as a working class but not only the father of the family funded his studies the first time but they are willing to pay for him to study medicine. To give an idea of how the kids of a working class were, the time they reached 8-10 they started working just like their parents. There are actually working class people in here and they are the women who are being mentioned in the kitchen, the ones who try to take care of the children. They are being screamed and blamed and Ian McEwan mentions them 3-4 times??

To sum it up, in the first part we are following the most irritating people, with no real problems so Ian McEwan creates one, since we need a plot! So a crime is committed but they blame an innocent man for it. Based on the testimonial of a 12-13 yo. 🙄 Her father had insane power in the government.

Part 2: We get a snippet of war. Finally something important. At first I didn't like this part, mainly because Robbie was just your regular Joe, the only reason he went to France to “fight” the Nazis was because he was a convicted criminal and he knew that if he survived they could give him some kind of amnesty(I think that's the word or show favour). I believe that it's an important part cause in today's world that men who sit on a chair all day are saying nonsense like”men are naturally protectors, providers and blah blah” it actually shows the mindset of your average man. I don't think that a lot of people understand that the heroic men who fought to protect their families, their countries and their ideals were a very, very, very small percentage.

Part 3 The small brat has grown up and we follow her as a young adult in the middle of ww2, working as a nurse. She didn't change at all. She can't understand what war is, there's a part that she imaging that if the Germans reached the uk the people could still play tennis and go with their works normally. There's another part that she thinks that instead of the hospital she could be in university🙄. I needed to do a research in this part cause I was actually shocked about how unaffected UK seemed to be by ww2 through the eyes of Briony. Well the upper class truly didn't feel the war, at least compared to other counties. Their economy even though it was affected, it was nowhere near as bad as the majority of countries that took them years to come back and lost millions from starvation. But even though England wasn't as affected, I would expect for someone who works with war victims to be able to understand the situation better.

Part 4 She is old, she is dying but yet she still doesn't seem to have changed that much compared to her 12-13yo self and her 18yo self. Pathetic if you ask me


Would I ever recommend this book to anyone? No. Especially if you had close members of your family and you know how they experienced ww2 stay away from it. Not seeing ww2 from the eyes of someone who is British may actually be good for you! If you are here for the romance, I don't see you enjoying it either. If you are here for the historical part, I also don't see it. Idk for who is this book for. 

Compared to her Miss Marple mysteries, the Hercules Poirot one's make a lot more sense and they are more difficult to break. 

Agatha follows her “typical” route, of the most obvious one in the beginning, being the murderer. She wrote the story so well that at least in my case she got me confused. Felt like a zig zag. I started questioning myself and even agreeing with the first charges against another character. There are other crimes involved in this particular case and none of the characters is really innocent, it made it even more confusing and entertaining at the same time. You lose the plot with the number of crimes you follow. Well played! 

I had read all her books in my teens and I was fascinated by the fact that all her books had to do with obsession, not in the same way. I don't think there is someone like her nowadays, at least I haven't found someone.

Sin is about obsession rooted in envy, that leads to self destruction.  We have a very miserable, pathetic main character from the beginning of the book, who stays almost the same until the very end. What I really appreciate about Josephine Hart is that she doesn't drag a story that doesn't have a lot to say. I don't know if I would reccomend it to anyone. She is for a specific audience and I don't think outside of those a lot of people will see the vision.




It may sound like a reach and it is because they aren't in the same level, but she is kind of my Aronofsky who has explored obsession who lead in self destruction in his films, multiple times. I haven't found someone who does the same in the world of books in his level.  In Pi(1998), Black Swan(2010) and the character of Ellen Burstyn in Requiem for a dream, all of those explore obsession, different types of it and Elizabeth Hart does the same in most of her books, not on his level of mind blowing but still.

Wasted potential. Finally finished all the 3 books Ian Rankin wrote under the name of Jack Harvey, in my opinion Bleeding Hearts was clearly the best.(Maybe I am a romantic after all) 

Even though Blood Hunt has a premise of revenge which I am not fond of, I got hooked on it. I liked the main character, I liked the plot with the big conspiracy with the pharmaceutical, the cover ups and the death of the reporter who wanted to publish the truth and he had spent so much time investigating and putting himself at risk for it. Unfortunately I expected a lot more focus on that, at the end it seemed that it completely lost the plot. To me it seemed like the main character reaches a point that doesn't even want to get revenge for his brother anymore, it turns out completely personal. The ending was so unsatisfying. I wasn't even expecting a happy ending but I expected some closure, at least more closure than we got. 

A very enjoyable book with an interesting concept. A lot easier to read and not as theoretical as “from the earth to the moon”. An encyclopedia will still be needed at some points to search some scientists, plus for the minerals if you want to fact check their functionalities.

It was a lot more focused on the adventure, the 2 main characters and not as much on the technical part of things. It also had a lot more completely, completely fictional things even though Verne always tries to pass them as realistic as possible.