Book Review: Child 44 - Tom Rob Smith

*Ahoy! Spoilers ahead…*

This isn't my usual type of book, so I'm finding it quite hard to write about it. I definitely didn't love it, but then as I don't read this sort of thing very often it's hard to judge whether that is just because it's not my usual type! I know that it was nominated for the booker long-list though so I'm assuming it must be a good one of its type.

I think my personal favourite thing about it all was the backdrop - it's a really hard setting to write against and he must have done so much research into Russia's history to be able to feel as though he could tell this story appropriately. It was an interesting story to tell, purely because reading it now I'm sure that these sorts of crimes were covered up in exactly this sort of way, although I'm not sure how many have-a-go-heroes would have been around to try and fulfil their own vigilante justice systems?

I didn't know that this was a trilogy until I read the blurb at the end, so I read it having no idea what the fates of the main characters would have been. I found the ending a little bit oh-so-convenient, and I think that if I had known that there were two more books to come (and therefore I think would have assumed Leo would make it through OK) I would have found it a bit more of an annoying read; I didn't feel there was a huge amount of jeopardy as it was. I felt it was so clear from the start that we were going to read about Leo's redemption and journey into becoming a hero that I found his relationship with Raisa a bit of a by-line - you could tell that she was just a plot device to pit Leo's personality changes against. That's all well and good for a storyteller, but it did make me care little for whether she lived or died.

I did wonder why the Andrei / Pavel story was told at first, but I just figured it was a backstory to set the scene for us about the harsh realities of Russian life. I have to admit, when Andrei's name was first revealed it didn't ring any bells at all - it was only when I learned Leo's name was Pavel that I flicked back to the first chapter to double check the names and realised where the book was going. I also found the resolution with Andrei's character a bit disappointing - I don't think enough was done to make the reader have any sort of understanding as to why Andrei would behave that way (his brother left = he becomes a serial killer.. really?!) and Leo / Pavel's reaction to the situation seemed muted - I was left wondering why more wasn't made of the potential connection between these two men if this was what the whole book was leading up to? Maybe that's something for the sequel, I don't know.

I don't think I'd read the next one in the trilogy but the book I got had the film poster as the cover, which has Tom Hardy in so I might watch that if it comes on telly! I'd prob give it 5 out of 10 - I read it quickly and generally enjoyed it, but I have no inclination to read the next one. I think, for me, the ending was just a bit too neat - it was a pretty long book but everything got tied up really nicely within about 20 pages.

Book Review: Arthur and George - Julian Barnes

So I chose this because I got given a copy when it was on tv and it had been lying around on my desk for weeks. I don't know if I would have chosen it otherwise - the story itself didn't initially interest me and I didn't watch the TV adaptation. It actually took me a bit of an age to get through - most of it I didn't find particularly gripping and it wasn't something that I felt compelled to pick up and read through. I found the whole of the first section massively frustrating because you knew exactly what was going to happen and were careering towards this slightly ridiculous outcome without being able to do anything about it (obviously). This was the part I found the most slow-going.

Once the arrest had been made however and the trial started I enjoyed it a bit more - I still wouldn't say I loved it but it did become more engaging for me. Again though, it was so clear what was going to happen I didn't feel any jeopardy whilst reading it. I should also say here that the early Arthur parts of the book I found endlessly dull - I get that the point was to highlight the differences in upbringing etc but I just found it boring. Actually, I'm not too sure what the point of all the Arthur stuff was aside from him taking on the case under his own steam. I hated all the stuff about his wife and mistress, I didn't care for him at all, and for me those sections just distracted from the actual point of the story - seeing as I was struggling with getting on board with these aspects anyway, the Arthur parts just pulled my interest even further away!

Also - I found the entire last few pages utterly baffling. Obviously this is somewhat based on real-life accounts, but I couldn't tell you what this added to the rest of the novel or why it was included. Personal interest? I don't know, but it definitely changed the tone of the book for me at the end.
This is probably one of those books that would be a good book to study, as there are obviously themes that run throughout - Britishness, race, otherness, etc, blah - but I found myself rolling my eyes quite a lot. One bit I did enjoy though were the chapter names 'beginning with an ending' etc; I thought this was a clever way of connecting the story up.

Wouldn't read it again! 4/10

Read it? Enjoyed it? Agree? Disagree?

Book Review: Three Men In A Boat - Jerome K. Jerome

I should probably start by saying this is not my sort of thing. I find this sort of rambly around-the-houses humour tiring rather than enjoyable, and more often than not I was rolling my eyes at this rather than tittering along. I found a lot of the sections long and uninteresting (though boring would probably be a step too far) and it was rare that I found myself speeding through the pages. I finished it a couple of weeks ago and to be honest there aren't many bits that I can still recall, though I did enjoy the disparaging remarks about Reading (I inadvertently got punched in the face there once). I don't want to be super negative though, so here are some of the plus points for me:

* I thought that the characterisation was good - it was easy to make sense of who was who by the behaviours being described.
* I appreciated the concept of the novel that it wasn't about anything in particular, and just about the everyday mundane intricacies of life.
* Montmorency is a good name for a dog.
* Short chapters - good for commuting.
* I enjoyed the way it ended - the way they just decided to finish up their trip when they did made it more accessible and, actually, this was the part I found most humorous.

To sum up! This just isn't a book for me. There was nothing wrong with the writing or characters or fundamental idea of the story, it's just that taking so long to get round to the point over and over again bugs me. I felt a few times when reading it that it would have worked better as a series of short stories, though, actually, I guess that's exactly what this is.
3 / 10

Book Review: Jamaica Inn - Daphne Du Maurier

A couple of friends and I recently started a Facebook book club, which is exactly the same as a regular book club except we don't meet at the pub and talk about the books over wine (so not quite as good, then). The most recent choice was Daphne Du Marier's Jamaica Inn, so I thought I'd copy it here rather than only having it on the wasteland that is Facebook!



I will preface this by saying that I have never read any other Daphne Du Maurier books, and I didn't watch the recent BBC adaptation of this, so I went into this not knowing at all what to expect from the story or writing style.

So, first of all I will say that I felt like I knew where the story was going from quite early on. I felt like we were always supposed to suspect the vicar, although at the same time I felt like Du Maurier was trying to trick us into not suspecting him? It was almost like a triple bluff - oh he's weird looking he must be evil, but then why would we judge someone just because of that, oh yes he's evil after all. I also didn't ever feel like there was any jeopardy in Mary and Jem's relationship; when he was carted off after the fair it just seemed to me like it was a pause in their relationship rather than a potential end to it.

In terms of the characters, it was clear that Mary was written as a strong and capable women (I think probably "plucky" is the right word??!?) particularly when looking at the time this was written. This was really easily seen in the fact that the only other female character we got to spend time with was her Aunt Patience, who I felt was only really there for two reasons; firstly to highlight how independent Mary herself was, and secondly to show how downtrodden and lost a woman can become purely by her situation or circumstance. 

One of the main things I noticed was how many references there were to the fact that Mary wasn't a man, and how much this seemed to mean to the other characters. There were so many sentences starting "if she were a man" or "as she was a woman" to suggest that she wouldn't be able to do something, but I personally felt that Du Maurier wrote this too many times to really mean it - it was as if she was purposely being sarcastic to try and highlight how ridiculous it is that Mary was judged to not be able to do certain things just because of her gender. The fact that Mary's character was written to have walked 9 (?) miles in an evening and then ventured into the inn by herself in the pitch dark, but then was not 10 minutes later found to be too weak to go in again. I wonder whether Du Maurier was trying to show the double standards that exist, without being too overt about it.

Overall I definitely enjoyed this more than I thought I would - it's not one I would have ordinarily picked up but I found it easy to read and wouldn't balk and reading another book by the same author in the future.

6.5/10

Anyone else read this one?