My Bookcase - On the Shelves: T-Z

The last letters of the alphabet, from the T to the Z and thus from Thompson to Zahn, you'll find briefly reviewed here.

Can't find what you want in here? Perhaps you'd better try: A-F, G-M or N-S.

The 'Reviews'

John Kennedy Toole's A Confederacy of Dunces is a funny book, if you get its humour. What I mean is that it is really a deeply tragic affair about a fat, bemoustached and hideously dressed obstinate man of thirty (Ignatius J. Reilly) who lives with his mother, resents work and makes a mess (or show, depending on your point of view) of everything he does. Sounds far-fetched? Not in this novel! It is one of the few novels I've ever read which could actually make me laugh out loud due to Ignatius' ridiculous, though tragic, behaviour, his New York (girl)friend's (Myrna Minkhoff) total misinterpretation of his writings, and the truly disarming simplicity with which the plot unfolds which is both hideously unconvincing and totally natural within the parameters of the novel. The only qualm I had with it was that it was just a bit too much on the feelgood side. You know, the Happy Ending kind of thing.
Also, there's a LOAD of characters: Ignatius, his mother Irene Reilly, Myrna, Jones (a negro guy), Darlene (B-girl in a club called The Night of Joy), Lana Lee (proprietor of foresaid club), George (of dubious origin), Gus Levy (president of Levy Pants), Mrs. Levy, Miss Trixie (employee with L.P.), Gonzalez (employee with L.P.), Mr.Clyde (proprietor of Paradise Vendors (sells hotdogs)), Dorian Greene (a fop/gay), Patrolman Mancuso (a sort of inspector Clouseau), his aunt Santa, Claude Robicheaux (Irene's beau-of-sorts)... Erm, that's about it I think, apart from all the minor characters that appear.
Anyway, as I said, this book is funny if you get the humour if you don't, I can imagine this is one Hell of a boring book and you'd just be annoyed with the characters who all act horribly (there's not one truly sympathetic character in the whole novel). Indeed, all the characters are, in fact, dunces, to some extent, and those who aren't have their lives screwed up by those who are (just like in real life, really).
Unfortunately there's no reason to expect another novel from this author as he committed suicide before it was even published. His mother kept harrassing publishers until one finally relented and published the thing.
Anyway, if you haven't read this one, then DO. I mean it. You can test whether you have a sense of humour. If you think the novel is not funny you're probably a sad proletarian who can identify with the main character (which should not happen!). And if you think it is, well you can work it out.
Back to top.

Ecstacy is a collection of three short stories, two very short and one slightly longer (encompassing about half the book). As the title suggests, drugs (and XTC in particular) are about bountiful, but also sex, aggresion, love, hate and frustration are present. Indeed, for those who read Trainspotting there is little new. I know this is a pretty old book, and I heard that his latest, Filth is apparently quite good. Maybe I'll read it, but if you hated Trainspotting, skip this right away. Hm, even if you liked Trainspotting you could skip this unless you're a die hard fan.
Back to top.

Woa! A film which really only has the title in common with the book - they're just so different it's unbelievable. Both are very good in their own right, though. If you haven't read the book, I think you should, and if you haven't seen the film, welcome back from Mars.
Back to top.

The book is really tops, apart from one paragraph, which really stands out as a quick-quick explanation of why on of the characters happens to enter the house where Dorian hides the painting, and thus seriously sucks (excusez le mot). The first time I saw the film I thought it was alright - the picture being in colour while the rest of the film is in black and white, but Angela Lansbury as an object of desire? And I thought a painting which changes as the character changes was far-fetched.
Back to top.

Hm, this wasn't really a film, I believe, but either a tv movie or a tv serial based on the book. The first time I read it I thought that the book was terrible, but the second attempt I made changed my views and I thought it was quite alright. However, I don't care all too much for religiously surpressed deviant sexual preferences and all that stuff. I'm sure J.W. had a hard time growing up and coming to grips with her femininity & her lesbianity, and later books by her show that she's gone somewhat off her rocker, but I am more interested in ideas than in truth or any such concept.
Back to top.

Hm, the book never once mentions the main character's name, but in the film he's called Erik (meaning, of course, 'Eer ik' ('Honour I')). I saw the film before I read the book and I'm still not sure which one I actually prefer, as the film (made in 1974) manages so well to capture the contemporary spirit of the times, but doesn't stick all that closely to the book (almost like Trainspotting). It's been almost a decade since I read the book or saw the film, so really, I can't say anything sensible about it without having to refer to the fact that the concepts were formed when I was still young (and didn't change since).
Back to top.

I only read Billy Bob Thornton's Sling Blade screenplay because neither the film nor the video is currently available in Holland and I was really curious about what the film was about. Not that I really believe a screenplay can replace a film (no way!), but it at least gives some impression of what the film's like, especially when you can picture the right face with the right character.
So what's it about? Well, Billy Bob Thornton plays a retarded (whoops! I mean mentally challenged) man who, when he was still a kid, killed his mother and her lover with the titular weapon. Now, at the start of the film/play, he is set free from the mental hospital he was in for 25 years. Of course, he's still mentally challenged, can barely read and has no idea what the world is all about. Once released, he befriends a kid (played by Lucas Black, the kid from American Gothic) and his mother, but her abusive boyfriend and his backward pals hate him.
I won't tell you anymore in case you haven't seen the film, but given the strength of the Academy Award winning screenplay (adapted from the short film Some Call It a Sling Blade) it should be a good film. 'Quietly powerful' is a term that comes to mind. Well, at least I can't wait till I see it.
Back to top.

Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Ha! I really needed to read this after the A.S. Byatt-crapola! This short novel (204 pages, including blank pages and drawings by Ralph Steadman) was just pure fun to read and, indeed, didn't take me more than half a day to finish, which was good.
I'm reading the 'cinematically enhanced' version (i.e. with Johnny Depp on the cover), which also includes a picture of Hunter himself who, in all honesty, looks more like Tommy Lee Jones than anyone who'd ever touch an acid tab. But I don't doubt that the story told is 'true' (i.e. believable).
The story, to come to that, is simple: two people (Hunter and his 'attorney') drive to Las Vegas on some vague assignment to cover the 'Mint 400' - a motor race in the desert, but throughout the entire story (well, 98% of it at least) they're totally bombed out on all kinds of drugs, so the story never gets anywhere. In the second part they're still (or, in the case of the attorney, again) in Las Vegas, but this time to 'cover' some convention on dangerous drugs. A convention crawling with cops and DAs, and in which they move loaded with all kinds of, erm, dangerous drugs, telling fibs, getting themselves in and out of trouble (by fucking up and telling lies) and generally make a complete mess of 'things'. Not really in a Burroughs kind of way (i.e. totally hallucinating, and representing things from within that hallucinatory state of mind), but more descriptive of what's actually happening in the 'outside world' while they're on uppers, downers, whatevers (ether!). This means that things get strange, but never really strange - it is at all times possible to follow what's going on, what stunts are being pulled, how people are reacting, etc.
Anyway, this book was fun to read (have I said that? Ah yes, I have, well it's true), which is really all there's to it. Well, for me at least.
Back to top.

This, Close to the Knives, a Memoir of Disintegration, is actually one of the best books I have ever read. I'm serious. It's been a years since I read it, so my memory isn't as sharp as it could be, but what I do remember is that I was totally captivated by the beautiful prose of the book, which is, indeed, a memoir -a real one- of David Wojnarowicz, which he started writing when he had already contracted AIDS (which explains the title, I should think).
In the story, he is extremely frank, funny and sometimes viscious, especially when it comes to Republicans and religion. He, in effect, blames these people partly for the rapid spread of AIDS in the 80s, and writes how, if only people had been better informed, much suffering could have been avoided. "Bah!" I hear you say, "This is old stuff! Clich�d shit!" Yes, well, quite, but you shouldn't listen to how I have written it, but you should look at how he did it. He's much better at this. Was, actually, as he's dead as a dodo.
In effect, the whole memoir-thing is a collection of essays ranging from his life on the streets of New York to his violent upbringing and his latter-day recognition as an artist (he made some really beautiful pictures, among many other things).
I really recommend this one.
Back to top.

I'll take the whole Thrawn Trilogy: Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising and The Last Command together, as it's one big story anyway. First of all, some trivia. Did you know the whole Star Wars thing was nigh-on dead when these books were written? Seriously. Very few people still found themselves interested in Star Wars before Heir to the Empire came along and revived the whole Star Wars merchandise. These were also the first novels to be written which were not based on the story of the original trilogy. So what to think of this then?
It's impossible to see it as it was then - something new, so I'd best not even try. This was new to me anyway, as I'd never read a Star Wars novel in my life (except the first one, A New Hope) and I had no idea what to expect. But I'll tell you what I got: a soap opera. A very human soap opera. There's love and betrayal and an evil enemy who gets his comeuppence (or does he?) and there's the original team of Luke, Han Leia (pregnant and married to Han Solo!), Chewie, Lando, C3PO and R2D2, together with a host of rather familiar (especially for those who collected the dolls -sorry- action figures), though distinctly minor, characters. New are the characters of Grand Admiral Thrawn and the extremely popular (because female & thus rare in the SW universe) Mara Jade.
But what happens? Well, the Emperor is dead and the Empire is virtually non-existent. However, there is one guy, called Thrawn, who is still very much a loyal supporter of Empire ideology, and really wants to start it all over again. In order to do this, he plans to capture the central planet of the Star Wars galaxy - Coruscant. Does he succeed? Is the Pope pro birth control?
Thing is, though, that you know how this is going to end, and that that's not important. The plot is interesrting of itself and Zahn does his best to make something of it. The problem is, though, that, like Kevin Anderson with the X-Files, Zahn doesn't seem to have any love for Star Wars and just stereotypifies all the characters to the point where they become frighteningly flat. No matter - it's thankfully not a story that's driven by the old heroes, but one driven by Thrawn (who's actually rather well portrayed) and, to a lesser extent, Jade, who's like a cross between the cool parts of Luke, Han and Leia.
All in all, I had fun reading this trilogy, but I'm pretty sure that: a) I'd never read another novel by Zahn again, and b) I'd never read another Star Wars novel again. Make of it what you will.
Back to top.

It's been too long since I read this book, and I honestly don't remember the first thing about it. Friends meet and leave each other. Then they never meet and nothing much happens. Something like that.
Back to top.

Tolkien's The Fellowship of the Ring is, as you may have guessed, part of the The Lord of the Rings trilogy. In fact, it's the first part. This is important when you want to read this trilogy in chronological order. As you may also have guessed, the only reason I've started reading this trilogy is because they're being filmed as we speak, and I wanted to have read the books before I saw the movies. This makes reading the books rather unique because a) nobody ever raved about this story to me (quite the contrary); b) I'm not a particular fan of fantasy and thought The Hobbit was all right, but nothing special; c) I'm so puzzled by the whole LotR hype surrounding the movie; and d) there is no LotR-cult here like there is in English speaking countries. In fact, I believe there is simply no LotR-cult here at all (though I'm not sure - I've always believed there was no Star Trek cult either, but there is). Anyway, given this non-US, non-UK, non-fantasy and non-RPG point of view, what would this review have to add to what everybody else things about the trilogy? I haven't got a clue, but I know this: whatever I say wasn't influenced by the outside.
On to the review of sorts, then. Let's try to do this in some kind of order, like starting with the Note on the Text which, quite frankly, made me feel rather anxious. Douglas A. Anderson does little but sum up how successive publishers have more or less ruined the books by 'correcting' what they thought were spelling errors, and how other mistakes keep creeping into the text and what have you. At one point I thought this book was going to be a right mess. It wasn't all that bad. After that came the foreword which I'm going to skip entirely because, honestly, Tolkien writes like a boring old fart in it. This boded ill for the book itself - if you manage to turn people away from your book in less than two pages, what about the book itself? But, in true Hobbit spirit, we trotted on, dug through the prologue and came to the actual text of the first part of the story.
And here I stop. As I have said before, I don't like doing some summary of the story of any book, and will only do it when I disliked the book to such an extent that I want to dissuade you from ever reading it. Not here, then, so the first indication to what I thought of this book as a whole is known to you now already (that was quick). This doesn't mean that I won't be doing a summary at all. I think I'll do a spoof summary. You may know it's about a ring, and you may know it's about a journey. If you didn't, you know now. Here's a summary of the journey: they travel, they're afraid, they eat, they travel, they eat, they're afraid, they eat, they travel, they're afraid, they travel, they eat, they're afraid, they travel. And there you have it - a beautiful summary without a single spoiler, but still true to the book. Quite a feat, you must admit. So is this all there is to the story? Erm, no. In parts it's actually quite engrossing and one of the best parts of this book is not really part of the story, but part of the set-up: it doesn't take place during the heyday of a civilisation, but during it's decline, when, to quote Tyler Durden from Fight Club here, "nothing is static, everything is falling apart." This is a fantastic feature, and you really get the feeling this group of people tries to stop a collapse which is inevitable while they trudge through ruined buildings, thousands of years old, from days when Kings ruled Middle Earth. And, in a way, you know how it's all going to end, given that the story is supposed to take place a long, long time ago.
But boy is it thick! 535 pages for just the first part in which they really don't get all that far along, given the time they're taking. And not only the book, but also most of it's characters are not very smart. Gandalf is, of course, and there are two, maybe three other characters who show definite signs of intelligence, but that's about it. And that's out of a possible of what? 20 or so characters? Not a very high score, is it? No wonder they all went extinct. Moreover, they seem to keep on keeping really lousy secrets from each other, and say things like, "I thought... no, I won't say it." Well shut up then, mate! But these are, thusfar, minor grievances.

So let's do some recommending. So let's do it really brief: I've started reading part II.
Back to top.

Part 2 of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings Trilogy is called The Two Towers. I'm not here to tell you why it's called that, but suffice it to say that, yes, it mentions two towers somewhere along the way. Mind you, it doesn't only mention two towers, but also Frodo, Sam, Aragorn, Pippin, Merry, Legolas and Gimli - the protagonists from the last book (my review of which can be read right here), together with a whole host of characters new and old. In sheer numbers of characters this is not unlike an old sixties movie epic like Ben Hur or Cleopatra, really.
I can't tell you what happens. Well, I could, but I don't want to anything that's mentioned about the novel is, in effect, a spoiler. My particular version features a cover which already told me much more than I cared to know. In effect, having read part 1 and seeing the cover of part 2 I pretty much knew what was going to happen - not good. I really don't understand the thought behind this move; why would you, as a publisher, do something like that? What made someone say to Geoff Taylor (who painted the cover illustration) "Son, we want to see the novel told in the cover. Let it be clear what the novel is about and leave absolutely no surprises!"? Well?
That aside, I think I might be getting 'into' the trilogy now. Which is good. At least it wasn't crawling to a halt as often as The Fellowship of the Ring, and more things actually happened, none of which I can tell without revealing bits about part 1, which I didn't do in the review of part 1 and I'll be damned if I'm going to do it now. And part 2 is thinner. About 100 pages, but it cost exactly the same as part 1. Isn't that odd? Wouldn't the production cost of part 1 be higher, and shouldn't hus the price of part 2 be lower? Mind you, part 3 is thicker than either one, and still costs the same as 1 and 2.
My copy also explicitly mentions it should not be sold in the USA. Now why is that? Do we Europeans get a different version than Americans? Are those differences of such magnitude that it should be prevented at all cost that a US citizen would read a British copy? Are there passages in the book I just read that would totally subvert the American legal system or government? Does it reveal secrets about Europe we don't want to have fall into the wrong hands? There's maps in this book, yes, but they're not very accurate and none of the places it mentions actually exist, so that can hardly be it. It's puzzling. Perhaps Americans are more concerned with spoilers, and it's not the content of the book at all, but their covers! That must be it! Well, that mystery was easily solved, unlike, say, the mystery of Jeremy Irons in Dungeans & Dragons, or the mystery of the success of Gladiator, or the mystery of the fact there's actual debate on whether the new millennium started in 2000 or 2001.
Leaving all this aside, I think it's about time I told you what I thought of the trilogy up till now. And in answer: it's pretty typical trilogy-type stuff. Introduction, setup, execution, which means that even if I would talk about the content of part 2 it would make little sense by itself. Naturally, both parts 1 and 2 have a cliffhanger of sorts, although I think part 2's is better than part 1's. In any case, if you've considered reading the trilogy, but were put off by the slownesws of part 1, I can assure you that part 2 is far quicker, with less travel/fear/eat/sleep and more action (which is good) and good, nearly cinematic, descriptions of events. Well done.

Recommendation time. Erm, well, if you've read part 1 your bound to read this one anyway, and if you haven't read part 1 it's little use reading part 2, so what's there to recommend? Part 1? Okay, I recommend you read part 1. There.
Back to top.

Tolkien's third and final book in the The Lord of the Rings trilogy is called The Return of the King. To reiterate what I've said before: I haven't said a single plot-spoiling thing as yet, and I'll be damned if I'm going to do it now. In other words, this is pretty safe, as far as book reviews go. I mean, you may still read this and get homicidal tendencies, but I believe that's more to do with your state of mind than with my writing. I hope.
Anyway, let's get on with it. This book is, apart from the conclusion to a trilogy, also The Book that Has a Death Toll that Goes Backwards. Did I say there were no spoilers? I lied. A little. This isn't really a spoiler spoiler, more a non-plot point which has nothing at all to do with the rest of the story. What I'm about to tell you isn't like saying Vader is Luke's father before you watch The Empire Strikes Back, it's more like saying his Snow Speeder is going to crash. A minor thing. If, however, you were really shocked and surprised and excited by Luke's Speeder going down, you may react strongly to the coming revelations, and thus I'd advise you to not read any further. Skip this paragraph altogether. Now! Okay, for the rest of us (for I count me among you, which makes you us), here's the really-not-much-of-a-spoiler-of-a-non-plot-point: people appear to die, and then they're not dead. There. That's it. I won't even tell you who's going to die, but I will say that this happens more than once or twice. In fact, I counted (well, counted, this sounds as if I was actually, actively, keeping track of dead-people-who-are-not-dead, which I didn't) some four cases, though there may have been five or six (see? I didn't really count). What's worse, these people are presumed dead by their very own friends! Now, if any of my friends read this, I would like to tell them right now: when you think I'm dead, please check whether: a) I'm breathing; b) have a pulse and/or c) am talking. If one or more of the aforementioned points check out, I'm not really dead, which should lead you to the conclusion that there's no need to bury me yet. Unless, of course, reading this has given you the homicidal tendencies mentioned earlier, in which case me not being dead may lead you to burying me. Or worse (I try to keep an open mind in these things, but it's pretty tough keeping an open mind when you want to bash my brains in... you know what I mean).
Well! With all this talk about death and killing and dying (you're quite a morbid lot, I must say), I've totally forgotten to say something about the book itself. And now I will do just that: I haven't read any of the appendices. I'm not sure if it's an altogether bad thing to not read about the back history of the Kings of Numenor or the Elven language, but for those who think it is, and for those who feel like killing someone because of this, I will say, "I will read the appendices one day soon!" [And pigs can fly.] The story itself, quite surprisingly, only reaches to about two thirds of the book. The other �200 pages are the appendices (there are six in totel), the index (one) and a number of really bad maps of Europe (see the review of the previous Lord of the Rings book for details on this reference). But, as I haven't read these parts of the book, there's little I can say about them, and since I promised not to spoil anything, there's not much I can say about the part that I have read either. Which leaves us: the title. The title mentions a king who returns, and there can be no surprises that somewhere along the way there's a king who returns. Though what king and returning to where I don't want to spoil. Not even if you've already read part 2.
This is getting to be one of the worst reviews in the history of reviewing, apart from, perhaps, a review which does nothing but state that, yes, The Return of the King is a book that contains actual pages and ink. That is, unless you have the spoken word version, in which case there's previous few pages, but quite a few tapes. Ahem.

In conclusion: do I recommend this one? I've said before that recommending only part of a trilogy is completely useless, so instead of limiting myself to just this one part, let's ask the question of whether I would recommend reading the entire trilogy. And would I? Hmmmm. I'm not sure. I suppose it's obligatory for every fantasy fan, and it should really be read by literature students. Or at least by students of English literature (although there are no restrictions to reading this book if you're a student of, say, Russian literature). But for everyone else, who usually casually pick up a book and read just because there's not much to do with the dishes done and the washing machine on spin dry, I'd say you may want to check this out of the library, and not rush to the nearest bookshop to get the hardback copy of this trilogy.
Back to top.