ed_moore's Reviews (345)

Though I didn’t massively enjoy ‘Far Away’ or ‘This is a Chair’, I decided to give Churchill another chance as my lecture on the plays was so good that I have now ended up deciding to write my end of semester essay on them. ‘Seven Jewish Children’ was brought up in the lecture and given its time appropriate context with the recent resurgence of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the media I reckoned it would be a worthwhile read. Churchill lays out seven scenes with no clear characters, spoken through the voices of parent figures recounting Jewish history and anti-semitism. The first two scenes look at the holocaust and latter five the Israel-Palestine war with the perspective of childhood ignorance. Through the repletion of “tell her” and “don’t tell her” the idea of protecting children from conflict, both through ignorance to not upset them and try to retain childhood innocence but also saying enough to make them aware and keep them alive. The children discussed seem to be of each Israeli and Palestinian descent, and though Churchill has had criticism from pro-israeli critics when she first published in the initial height of the conflict in 2009, that Israeli were villainised and even likened to Nazi oppressors, whilst the play reads more pro-Palestinian in my eyes due to ones own political perspective, the most importan focus of Churchill’s isn’t any form of political siding but viewing the war from the angle of the victims from each side, the children whose innocence, homes and families and in often cases lives are stripped away from them in a conflict which is no fault of their own. I much preferred ‘Seven Jewish Children’ to the aforementioned Churchill plays I have read, perhaps as its relevancy among todays conflict tugged on the heartstrings. It was also short, but that is why I believe anyone with an interest and concern in the current affairs of the world should feel an obligation to read it, for it highlights the victims of conflict over any political agenda. 

It is difficult for one to go about giving a rating to the Communist Manifesto, simply because it is the Communist Manifesto. Marx and Engels wrote a crucial piece of literature to the history of political thought and formed the communist ideology, and for such it holds great merit. However, though the principles of communism are inherently well intentioned, as seen by the chapters of history playing out since its publication in 1848 the system of communism is a flawed ideology, where natural human corruption leads those in charge of communist governments to exploit their power and not act for the people as they intended it to. It has led to human exploitation, genocides and the rise of dictatorships. For that reason, I do not review it based on its content, written style or messages, but purely intellectual interest. Marx and Engels direct their manifesto to the reader, it speaks directly to you as a member of the proletariat and encourages revolution against the chains of capitalism and the bourgeoise. It’s social commentary is largely accurate and interesting, and many of Marx and Engel’s claims for a brighter and more equal future, contradictory to the facade of the utopian socialism, are positive and well argued. Where they falter however is in a lack of a practical solution. The first step for the success of communism is a single individual claiming power over a country in order to enact communist policies, and the order these policies will be enacted is set out in the second section ion the manifesto. In practice, when this leader seizes the property and assets of the bourgeoise, it is rare that they are fairly distributed to the people. For the success of communism one individual must take absolute power, and that undermines the very ideology that such individual is pursuing. The manifesto presents fascinating political ideals and changed the shape of history, whereas its failure as an ideology is present immediately, in the manifesto of the ideology itself. 

Thus concludes the oldest book on my TBR, which I have had intention to read for at least 5 years when thriller was my go-to genre. Stieg Larsson’s thriller ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ follows journalist Mikhail Blomkvist and his unlikely partner, hacker Lisbeth Salander in their freelanced job to find the missing niece of a industrialist tycoon CEO who went missing 40 years prior, the case closed as an unsolved mystery. It also follows a side plot of a corporate legal battle which highlights the faults of capitalism as a system. It was an extremely engaging story throughout, as the case with most mysteries as clues begun to emerge me progressing through the book much faster, and some moments succeed in sending literal chills down my spine. The mystery was really well written and full of twists, though it is impossible to ignore how harrowing the book was. Larsson writes extremely graphic and detailed scenes of rape and torture that are extremely uncomfortable to read. Each part of the book is epigraphic by a statistic about women and sexual violence in Sweden, which is extremely important in addressing the crisis beyond being in fiction, and in most cases the sheer size of the statistic percentages were tragic. (Men are disgusting.) I end on that note as it is the primary message of the novel, though the mystery was engaging it was an extremely uncomfortable and illuminating read. TW’s are crucial with this one. 

Aphra Behn’s ‘The Rover’ is a play marketed as a proto-feminist comedy, and I would argue it doesn’t match either of these genres. It just comes across as sexist, which was surprising given Behn was one of the most successful female writers of her time. It is the story of a Spanish girl called Florinda who loves the English cavalier Belville, though is denied the marriage as her brother Don Pedro has arranged marriage to a much older rich man called Don Vincentino. In the lovers turmoils to unite despite Pedro’s refusal, Florinda finds herself chased by men, abused and raped and in the end there is no consequence for the mistreatment of the female characters and all ends happily, with sudden shifts in characters attitudes to the romance and towards women in the final act with no explanation why. ‘The Rover’ was far from witty and charming as it tries to be, and just sexist, uncomfortable to read at times and extremely disappointing.

Reread 15th May 2025:
-Technically now fully reread 'Macbeth' as have finished my analysis of it for tutoring. Given how little I have had time to read so far in May I am absolutely taking the opportunity to log it again!
Still just as powerful and impressive a play, still my favourite work of Shakespeare's of what I have read so far!

Initial Review from December 2023:
It is absurd that it has taken me so long to get around to reading ‘Macbeth’ because it was such a brilliant play. It is absolutely one of his most praised and popular for a reason. It tells the story of Macbeth, a Scottish noble who is prophesied by a trio of witches that he will become king of Scotland, and his subsequent greed in doing whatever it takes to increase his power and status. It is the epitome of the arc of a tragic hero, a rise and subsequent fall in power, though I would also argue that Macduff is not the villain of the play as he is made out to be. The soliloquies of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth were brilliant and I especially enjoyed the presentation of the witches speech, how their language bounces off of one another and is chanted together at times. The plot was engaging throughout and tension was consistently at its peak

(though I was disappointed by the sudden death of Lady Macbeth as I felt more could have been done with her character rather than she just suddenly being removed from the plot to focus on Macbeth at his fall).

Despite such I have hardly any faults to address toward the play, and I am aware I gave Anthony and Cleopatra the title of my favourite Shakespeare play that I have read only earlier this week, but it has swiftly been overthrown in the way Macbeth himself seizes power. Where I didn’t entirely before, I am beginning to really enjoy and appreciate the work of Shakespeare. 

‘The Great Gatsby’ by F. Scott Fitzgerald was such an easy book to get into and also finish, not being too long. It is the story of Jay Gatsby, a bachelor of the upper class in New York City renowned for his lavish parties, and his desperate longing for a brief wartime romance he had with Daisy Buchanan, a girl he spent the last five years of his life making every effort to pursue. It is a story of capitalist critique, hopeless romance and unlikely loneliness, and a perfect literary rendition of the idea of being alone among a crowd, a mental crisis that haunts many inhabitants of the 21st centuries cities. Fitzgerald’s descriptions were sublime and the foreshadowing interwoven frequently throughout the book was a highlight, though this was more glaringly obvious to me as I borrowed Ella’s A-level copy where each occasion of such is highlighted in neon pink! The ending is also largely unexplained, though I was unusually content with this and don’t regard it as any such drawback to the story. I will however criticise the often racist and sexist remarks of the novel, whilst a product of the context at time of writing and often such ideas being voiced through the character of Tom Buchanan, who Fitzgerald presents as full of himself, incorrect and dislikable from the start, there are still occasional racist and sexist remarks inserted within ‘The Great Gatsby’s’ prose and descriptions. It does however make a theme out of capitalist critique, and in the same lens the sexist and patriarchal attitudes of the male characters to objectify and commodify women, therefore is mostly a social critique that falters in just a couple of exclamations. Overall ‘The Great Gatsby’ is a highly enjoyable and commendable text; and Nick and Gatsby were absolutely a missed romantic opportunity.

‘Far Away’ was “far” better than the other play of Churchill’s I read: ‘This is a Chair’. It had consistent characters and a more cohesive plot, though I felt was still too short to explore the themes raised. Churchill creates a liminal space on the stage where human morality is questioned, playing down murder and mourning the destruction of hats rather than prisoners who are executed. The inclusion of the scene discussing xenophobia was clever, where the characters discuss people of all walks and life and even animals, the concern being whose side the Thai butchers or crocodiles are on. Ultimately anything or anyone other is seen as only other, the few bad eggs categorising a whole ethnic group of people or species, and also lumping anything other as the same. The play was however so short that these concepts were only raised and quickly abandoned, and I feel so much more could have been done with the ideas. Once again, the lack of depth in Churchill’s plays let them down. 

Caryl’s Churchill’s play ‘This is a Chair’ was so short I am debating even logging and reviewing it to count as a book I have read, though here I am writing a review so I suppose debate has decided itself. It was just a series of scenes in different settings, with different characters and different events that are no way related, I would consider it to trump Cavendish’s ‘The Blazing World’ as the weirdest piece of literature I have read, but might need longer for it to sink in to decide such an acclimation. That being said it had so little content, just abstract depictions of the mundane each titled with a juxtaposing historical event. I don’t have any definitive ideas of a meaning myself so googled some interpretations that quote it to be “personal versus political affairs” and to be about “the surreal nature of modern life” but the play is so short and broken apart that none of these ideas I can claim are explored in enough depth to give any credit to. I did however like the absence of substance in the final scene, and against the title of the scene the potential symbolism of this. My lecture on this one is sure to be an interesting one. 

Shakespeare’s ‘Anthony and Cleopatra’ is a tragedy that recounts the love and demise of the titular characters, Mark Anthony, the Roman general and Queen Cleopatra of Egypt. Though the plot is based on the historical events, it is still well written with an engaging flow, with points of intrigue well balanced across the play. There is an excessive amount of scene breaks, though this was added in in later editing and not the original play. Ignoring some of these pauses between short scenes, especially emphasised in act 4, the plot remains consistently engaging. It is an extremely Romeo and Juliet-esque tragedy of doomed lovers that also has a political angle exploring the events that led to the birth of the Roman Empire, and Augustus, known in the play as Octavius Caesar, becoming the first emperor of Rome. Though the plot of Romeo and Juliet is very similar, I also cannot raise this as a fault due to the plays grounding in historical events. I will however fault the sheer amount of times characters just die from ‘grief’, these deaths being sudden and unexplained, seemingly just to increase the body count and therefore tragic elements of the play. The wives of Anthony are also largely mistreated by Shakespeare, they existing only to be betrayed and their deaths cast aside, no care for them whatsoever. I would also like to take mention of Enobarbus as a character however, being so incredibly blunt and living a dramatic shifting character arc in the few acts in which he featured in the play, he was absolutely a highlight. 

Zadie Smith’s ‘White Teeth’ is a novel that explores so much: Animal cruelty, genealogy, islamophobia, immigration, lost family and found family, WW2, religious extremism and teeth. Though that was my issue with White Teeth, Zadie Smith tried to explore too much in her book, and split it into four sections with focuses on the two male protagonists, Archie and Samad, and then the latter two sections on their children, Irie and the twins Millat and Magid, this creating so many themes and storylines mashing together and only partially related. A positive is that Smith’s writing style is very easy to read, but ultimately I drew a lot of parallels between White Teeth and another 21st century book on race I read this year, Adichie’s ‘Americanah’, where each had the same flaws: too long for the lack of plot they offer. Ultimately, due to its fragmentary nature, White Teeth didn’t make the most engaging of novels.