ed_moore's Reviews (345)

The second part of Henry VI wasn’t much better than the first, though a slight improvement as the plot had a slight bit more going on, a few supernatural elements and a line that completely threw me off, seeming so out of place but therefore funny. That alone has bumped the play up a bit in regards to my rating of it. It does however falter for the same reason as the first part. All the characters seem flat and the key one carrying over from the first part see no development or progression in their character arcs. Many new characters are introduced, but in most cases only to appear for a scene, be introduce, and die. This is a consequence of Shakespeare retelling history, whereas in comparison to his later works it is yet again a case of poor writing for the most part. 

Emily Brontë’s Wuthering Heights tugged on more heart strings than I expected it to. It follows the forbidden love affairs of two sets of Catherine’s and Heathcliff’s, Bronte’s naming of characters initially being so confusing though 100 pages in and with assistance of a family tree it eventually made sense. Wuthering Heights is melancholy in tone, the Yorkshire Moors seem bleak and dismal and it’s such a good book to begin autumn with. Every character is so problematic too, none of whom acting morally good in all situations and even the benevolent housekeeper and narrator making questionable decisions at times. This tension between characters and unpredictability of their actions was so engaging. I tried so hard to sympathise with characters and justify their actions, especially those of Heathcliff’s for so long as I wanted to see the plot through his eyes, but at one point I couldn’t justify him any more, and in solidifying himself as a true antagonist he became an incredibly fascinating character. Questionable as he was, his brooding and mysterious attitude was brilliant. Though Wuthering Heights baffled me initially for so long, once it got onto its feet it really ran. 

Thomas More is one of the figures of history of whom has interested me deeply. In reading his Utopia, I initially thought the book would lessen my interest in him, it being a bore, though it triumphed over my initial expectation. I say such, but really it neither enhanced nor damaged my previous interest in the man. Utopia is split into two books, the first being a discussion with Raphael, a traveller that More “interviews” whilst on business in Brussel’s about the flaws of the contextual Tudor English society under King Henry VIII at the time, exploring issues such as enclosing and the system of capital punishment. The second book then listed out the policies of the ‘Utopian’s’, a group of people who are presented by Raphael to live in the perfect society, hence coining the philosophical term of a ‘Utopia’. It explores the Utopians systems of currency (or interestingly lack of), religion, farming, military and justice system. Utopia is technically categorised as fiction, though I felt, with its philosophical focus, it read much more like a non-fiction book. It also often alludes and bases its ideas off of the works of Plato and Aristotle, and I feel as if I could’ve gained a lot more from More’s work having read Plato’s “The Republic” beforehand. However, to a modern reader the title of Utopia is deceiving. Whilst in the context of the time the society of the Utopians would be the idealistic societal system, it also incorporates the same societal norms of patriarchal gender systems, therefore not the Utopian society we would imagine today. Additionally, there is emphasis on having a lack of personal life, working for the good of the society and devoting all time to it, and laws against leaving the island without government permission. This led me to make connections to the later genre of the dystopia, the system of control looking more like the one in place in Orwell’s “1984”. Further, the Utopian’s employ many societal ideas that formed the basis of the communist manifesto, an ideology which appears Utopian and the basis of perfect society, however due to the nature of corruption in mankind has frequently been proven by history to fail. Ultimately, Utopia is philosophically very interesting in concept, though More’s ideas, or rather Raphael’s as asides by the author indicate his disapproval with some policies, are flawed in many areas. Further, in some areas it slightly drags and though interesting, isn’t the most engaging at all times. 

Kafka’s “The Trial” is a criticism of Austro-Hungarian systems of Bureaucracy. It follows Josef K, a bank manager who was one day arrested for a crime we are told to believe he is innocent of, and he, the court officials and the reader are all completely unaware of what such crime was. Kafka does not satisfy the questions raised in this book, only leaving you with more in the end, and though irritating to the reader I don’t believe this was his aim. He establishes a world where the those without legal power are victims of an oppressive system, but also those carrying out work to facilitate the system are “only following orders” so to say, they as ignorant of the higher up system of governance that Josef K is. Kafka ultimately creates a world where individuals can cast away guilt, freely blaming a higher up that they are facilitating and that we never meet. This is a scenario played out so often throughout atrocities that have occurred across history, and Kafka makes each stage in the lower chain of command nightmarishly human. 

This was brilliant. Stephen Fry recounts the tales of Greek mythology, from the birth of the universe, Cronos and Titanomachy to the birth of man to Midas, Pyramus and Thisbe and Echo and Narcissus. He adds a modern charm to the myths, making the stories accessible to anyone and has a brilliant talent in performing them in the audiobook version. My experience with Greek mythology prior to Mythos was limited in some areas, despite it being such a backbone to my studies, and in many ways I was reluctant to dive deeper into it, however the way Fry presents this marvellous world of gods and monsters has added so much more from mythology to my TBR that I now desire to explore. He also does a brilliant job in bringing chronology to the myths, making it read like an epic narrative. I thoroughly enjoyed my time with Mythos and am immediately picking up his second instalment, ‘Heroes’, though am only reluctant to give 5 stars as Fry only recounted stories passed on from generations, while I can’t fault his compilation of them, nor could he have done it any differently, the work is not completely his own. 

Tolstoy didn’t recognise War and Peace to be his first novel, this title was granted to Anna Karenina, instead describing War and Peace as ‘a history’. In some ways I agree with his categorisation, but only because it was so unbelievably dull, just a dragged out recount of Russia’s involvement in the Napoleonic Wars that I cannot possibly credit it to hold the interest of being a novel. I also realise that for some reason all the 1000+ page books I have undertaken have involved Napoleon in some capacity, which is an odd coincidence. He played a much larger role in War and Peace however, Tolstoy framing him as one of the epics main antagonists. I kept going with this behemoth as firstly I don’t allow myself to DNF books, but also because I kept telling myself that it would pick up. I was continually sure that at some point the book would become more engaging, and at the start I was just entering Tolstoy’s world and in 100 pages would understand it and become immersed. 1344 pages later and that never happened. Whilst some battle scenes were partially engaging, the few segments of war could not carry the rest of the book on their back, and even those weren’t brilliant. The episodes of peace were unbelievably dry and I couldn’t follow what was happening half the time. This could be blamed upon the cast of 600+ characters in the book, none of which being particularly unique or evoking my sympathy. The part I struggled with most was the lack of cliff hangers, surprises or impactful plot points, as being a ‘history’ Tolstoy titled each chapter with a small paragraph of exactly what happens within the chapter. This destroyed the suspense of reading and left nothing to be desired within the pages. I can recognise Tolstoy’s unique ability with words and writing craft, he employing a style where he tells the reader his exact thoughts on each significant event and injecting the history of the Napoleonic wars with his political stances, and can also therefore recognise War and Peace’s significance in the literary canon, though ultimately it was far too long and wasn’t the book for me. At least I can take pride in saying I’ve read it?

Kafka’s ‘Metamorphosis’ rivals Cavendish’s ‘The Blazing World’ as one of the weirdest things I have read, perhaps even trumping it. It follows the story of Gregor Samsa, a travelling salesman who awoke one morning to find himself a beetle. Kafka explores so much in only 50 pages, from the restrictions of capitalism, extrastentialist imprisonment and the love of one’s family. Metamorphosis is essentially a nightmarish tale of entrapment both physically and by the confines of society. It evoked a lot of sympathy for those on both sides of the beetle dilemma, though also the reader is distanced for Gregor’s state of body and mind is so impossible to comprehend. Metamorphosis is a very weird book. 

Part one of Shakespeare’s Henry VI, though a history of the battle between England and France over the town of Orleans, was underwhelming. A lot happened in the first instalment of the Henry VI trilogy however it all felt as if it had little meaning because every single character felt indistinguishable and undeveloped, completely unlike works of Shakespeare I have previously read. I do however recognise this could be due to accumulation of three reasons: Henry VI being regarded as Shakespeare’s first play therefore his craft not yet being perfected, it being a first part therefore the characters still having time to develop, and that it is really meant to be performed and not read. For that I can forgive it. There were merits too however, where you begin to see how Shakespeare’s craft will flourish, especially in the speech and dynamic between Lord Talbot and his son, though the only notable relationship among all the monotonous lords and dukes of England was given far too little stage time. It also explored the war from many perspectives aside from the English, Shakespeare granting an equal amount of time to Henry’s court and the French court of Charles. Joan of Arc was granted a leading, defiant and heroic role that could be celebrated by those with sympathies toward the French, as opposed to her importance in the battle of Orleans being brushed over due to gender, as many accounts from the time will have likely done. Henry VI pt 1 showed Shakespeare’s potential, though is also evidence that the bard had a long way to go in mastering his craft. 

Wolf Hall took me so long to finish because it’s the first time I’ve properly listened to an audiobook, realising I could multitask whilst monotonously filing emails and pricing fabrics at work. This both improves my opinion on the book as it gave me something pleasant to listen to whilst working, a habit I will be continuing, but also hindered Mantel’s writing as the words just went in one ear and out of the other, parts just not being taken in and I frequently lost track of the plot. This wasn’t assisted by the frequent small jumps in time Mantel includes before going back again. Wolf Hall was really just a recount of Thomas Cromwell’s time working under Henry VIII, therefore majority of the plot is just a novelisation of the history books and she doesn’t add a huge amount of her own touch, just retelling it a little bluntly. I can however praise the consideration given to the few female characters, many wives of the ministers being given brief scenes providing voices that had been silenced by history. Toward the end also had a lot more merit to the plot and writing, the execution of Thomas More (this isn’t a spoiler because it’s just how history played out) being genuinely saddening despite the cruelties he committed during his life. As a historical figure I find More extremely interesting and the quote Mantel attached to him of “words, words, just words” tugged at some heartstring, though we will see if that’s upheld when I have to read Utopia for uni in a few weeks. The 3.25 stars could have been different as I may have got note out of reading this physically, the elements missed in listening to it on audio possibly hindering my rating. 

Homage to Catalonia was a special read, as not only was I reading another work but Orwell that I hadn’t yet got round to, but I read it when in Barcelona, and reading a book in the city it is set in has a special feeling. In his memoir Orwell recounts his time fighting for the POUM against the fascist Franco regime during the Spanish civil war, he going over to fight due to his strong anti-fascist beliefs when the likes of Hitler and Mussolini had gained incontestable power. He exposes the harsh reality of the war, not being full of combat but militia stood in trenches in Huesca feeling useless, and in the same case hiding behind barricades for days on the Barcelona Ramblas firing rouge shots every few hours. It also exposed the reality of humans in war, and the bittersweet truth that one day you are firing at a man from across the street, and the next joining him for a coffee. Having to follow political orders is often the harsh reality of war.