The Great Gatsby

Gatsby is hailed as the second best novel of the 20th century. However, I didn't read it for that reason. It was just mentioned amongst general online communities that I frequent, and I liked the themes that it covered.

A blog post like this cannot really do justice towards the thousands of essays and the like you can find. I had no idea how much this book was also covered in high schools. I didn't know it was considered one of the "great American novels".

The size of the introduction in most modern publications seems to be at least a quarter the size of the book, which is great if you're studying it at school, but quite irritating if you're just treating it as another cheap paperback before bed.

The prose is written with an elite craftsmanship, and I admired the delicate clarity of emotional scenes but felt myself confused through scenes containing social events, and the bits in-between. The plot lacked a consistent flow for me: it wasn't tied together; scenes opening and closing; characters dropping into the mix quite abruptly, which gives the book a good feel once the reader gets used to it, and I suppose echoes the pace of upper-class party life. The last dramatic scene isn't made clear; everything seems to be implied -- hinted at.  

I feel like it's a fantastic book, and it does offer so much in a small amount of pages -- even sometimes listed as a novella. I have a semi-confirmed inclination that Fitzgerald set out to write a classic, or something that felt like one. I say semi-confirmed:

Fitzgerald intended to edit and reshape Gatsby thoroughly, believing that it held the potential to launch him toward literary acclaim. He told his editor the novel was a "consciously artistic achievement" and a "purely creative work — not trashy imaginings as in my stories but the sustained imagination of a sincere and yet radiant world".

It leaves me questioning: does an author successfully intend to write a classic? Gatsby feels and reads like one, but I'm not sure if it truly is a great work, quite simply because I can't ignore its significance and its history of trying to be nothing but one of the greatest. So whether or not it really is something of high literary acclaim, I enjoyed it.

Cloud Atlas

Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell, written in 2004. I've read over half this book before deciding to quit. I don't see the appeal. Not when it's 500+ pages and huge parts of the book are a chore to read. For something that's so well praised, I was expecting something totally original (which I felt it wasn't), and something with a beautiful prose. It's won over 5 awards. Perhaps the end is really clever and imaginative? How can a book that gives you nothing back in return be hailed as such a masterpiece of modern literature?

The book has 6 or so stories that are loosely linked via themes. It's nothing to get in-depth about. Sources also clarify this -- not even remotely interesting. These stories differ completely. I'm referring to writing style. Which can be categorised into good, and bad. Tolerable, and tedious.

I haven't read anywhere that this book is well written, there's so much praise for how it's written. I call that pretentious. No matter how much free time or a devoted reader you are, if you read hundreds of pages just to call it "clever" rather than enjoyable, I call that pretentious... and that's giving it something.

The cover and the awards might make this a good book though.

A Farewell To Arms

A semi-autobiographical novel by Ernest Hemingway written in 1929 at 30 years old. Hemingway served (volunteered) in the Italian army as an ambulance driver during World War 1 when he was about 19.

What I liked about this book, was the writing style. I'd only read a novella by Hemingway before. It's quite a simplistic prose, doesn't have a lot of commas, none of the 'flowery' type of writing that a lot of authors seem to use. It's still good writing, very effective, he doesn't waste a word. Because these events happened to some extent in Hemingway's life you cannot really make negative criticism about the book. It's great how he doesn't glorify anything. The book is honest, raw, bitter emotion. Real man's stuff. He drinks loads, too.

There are a lot of good, strong characters in this book, mainly a lot of his army comrades. They're not cliched which was surprising as well. After WW1 around this time people were able to write novels based on experiences during it, just thought there'd be no chance of getting way from that. Very interesting how it's set in Italy as well. Admittedly the dialogue between him and his lover was annoying, like something out of Casablanca. Guess I'm ignorant. It still annoyed me up till the very end, but I did accept it.

I really enjoyed reading this, as I haven't really read "war books" before. Luckily this wasn't one of those 'profound' heroic kind of tales. It is a tragedy, and I think that it's very powerful in that regard. I cannot help but feel similarities to Slaughterhouse Five due to its simplistic prose and the way its very blunt and direct about certain scenes that are very emotional. I think that really helps novels based in war. You can feel how broken the author and main character is if they write it like that. How a man would actually be able to go through tragic events like wartime romance and then write a novel based on it is remarkable, so that alone and knowing the author's history really helps to appreciate it.

Here's what Bukowski said about Hemingway in Ham On Rye, and sums up what I'm trying to say a lot better:

"What a thrill! He knew how to lay down a line. It was a joy. Words weren't dull, words were things that could make your mind hum. If you read them and let yourself feel the magic, you could live without pain, with hope, no matter what happened to you. Too grim, too serious. A good writer, fine sentence. But for him, life was always total war. He never let go, he never danced."