Maciek’s review of All the Light We Cannot See > Likes and Comments
3028 likes · Like
had a feeling you would rate this 2 stars!
Elizabeth wrote: "had a feeling you would rate this 2 stars!"
Ha! But how come? :)
Oh wow! Are you going to write a review, Maciek? I've been strongly considering this one after some very positive I've read and would of course be interested in your take on it.
Of course, Reanto! I'm writing one as we speak. I have so many reviews to write I think I'm going to take a day off just to get through with them. LOL! :)
Maciek wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "had a feeling you would rate this 2 stars!"
Ha! But how come? :)"
i think it is from reading your reviews over the past couple of years. i must have a feel for what you will like? when I saw that you were reading this one I was glad b/c i wonder if your review will reflect some of my thoughts about the book.
You know me well! :) I'd post the review soon and will comment here so that you'll know it's up! Should be done sometime tomorrow.
Sorry for the delay, everyone! Review is now done. :)
Thanks for this, Maciek. You listed your 'problems' with it in a very objective and simple way which makes it easy to agree and understand. I don't like a book when I get the feeling that certain bits were written with an agenda behind, kind of like a film where they add the sentimental soundtrack to an otherwise simple scene just to make sure you will cry. I enjoyed how you said you could see his hand behind the scenes. Perfectly put!
Sadly, it would seem that the most successful novels these days are written for simpletons with short attention span.
Love your review. I was never even tempted to pick this one up - it sounded constructed and unrealistic even in the blurbs. Much the same as The Book Thief, which i read and hated.
Renato wrote: "Thanks for this, Maciek. You listed your 'problems' with it in a very objective and simple way which makes it easy to agree and understand. I don't like a book when I get the feeling that certain bits were written with an agenda behind, kind of like a film where they add the sentimental soundtrack to an otherwise simple scene just to make sure you will cry. I enjoyed how you said you could see his hand behind the scenes. Perfectly put! "
Thank you, Renato! This is exactly what happened in the book - I could never stop seeing the author behind his creations. It obviously appealed to lots of readers, but left me cold.
Silvia wrote: "Sadly, it would seem that the most successful novels these days are written for simpletons with short attention span."
True! While there are short novels with short chapters which aim for more than that (such as Steps, a forgotten gem), but this structure remains largely a sign of a troubling syndrome - fiction written to be shorter, faster, and easier to quickly gobble up and move on from.
Karo wrote: "Love your review. I was never even tempted to pick this one up - it sounded constructed and unrealistic even in the blurbs. Much the same as The Book Thief, which i read and hated."
Thank you, Karo! I didn't even bother with The Book Thief because I thought it'd be pretty much that. No use reading this book, unless you're a glutton for punishment and haven't had enough yet. ;)
I love it when you find the books with enough "moral complexity" to satisfy your quest for excellence. And I appreciate your efforts to spell out exactly why an author doesn't connect for you. For me, I found enough depth in this and metaphorical richness for my tastes. I empathize with your sense of it having a PG-13 feel and have a similar reaction over the limited benefit of the diamond subplot. Still this sang for me, and it's not because I have a short attention span. Maybe I was ready for a different angle on the resilience of life despite the war. It's been 30 years since I was blown away by Kosinski's horrific take on a child's perspective, a writer whom I see hits the right spot for you.
Thank you, Michael - glad you enjoyed the book! Your review was one of those that made me want to read it. I think it's a matter of different tastes - I see how the book would appeal to many readers, but it just wasn't for me for reasons I stated above.
Kosiński's book is an entirely different league - I really need to review it properly, and soon!
...Werner neither openly embraces Nazism, nor condemns it - he's indifferent to the whole experience and role he plays.
i practically said the same thing!
drove me crazy, that.
also, This is World War 2, PG-13...
yep, exactly.
enjoyed your review, maciek. :)
Thank you, Elizabeth! Great minds etc. :)
A wonderful review, Maciek. I'm not bothering to read it. Not after "A Constellation of Vital Phenomena". :)
Thank you, Paula! I wanted to read the book you mentioned as well, but now I think I'll skip it if it reminded you of this one!
Don't skip it! I should have explained myself more fully. A Constellation of Vital Phenomena is a wonderful book and one of my favorites.
It just seems that their are so many books out there now about war. I am hesitant to read another one unless it is exceptional. (The Sojourn was also a great read).
Look forward to your thoughts once you have read A Constellation...
Thank you for clarifying, Paula! I thought that "A Constellation..." was a poor book that you didn't like, and this reminded you of it. I'd be sure to give it a try after hearing how much you enjoyed it. :)
I agree - this is not a bad thing by itself, but most of the time it's genuinely hard to write about war - any war - without simplifying it or resorting to cliches. I wanted to read this book because of all the rave reviews - should have known better!
Maciek, your description of this makes me think of The Book Thief. I had the same sort of reaction to that as you did toward this one.
I felt the same way about The Book Thief. Couple of pages and I put it down. Based upon your review, Maciek, I don't think All the Light We Cannot See will be one for me either.
If anything, I'll try the audiobook and go from there.
Lot of mixed reviews on this one. Did enjoy your review! :)
Mac: Unfinished at this time. Will be done in about 2 days?
I can see how someone could object to this book on the basis you have.
I think it is tyical of many fine books that are being tossed into the fray of late. The there is little new in terms of style
To me it is NOT historical fiction.
Unlike, you I'm enjoying it for what it is.
If it has a fault for me, it is that is is overwritten at times. Many times, less would have been better -IMO. And, I'm not expecting every book to read like "The Reader" by Schlink either.
Was it my best Best Historical Fiction of 2014? - Nope! How could it have been???
But, it is a fine 4.75 GR Star read - I'm an easy grader
Mac: The further I got into it, the more I agreed with you. I'm finished now. And I did downgrade the book as I wound it down.
1ST: It's an overly large dose of the new-age wave of American baroque rococo writing. Will someone please tell them to stop it! Enough is enough. Less is usually better.
Besides, everyone cannot not be a Pynchon. And, Pynchon writes for himself and he is hard to read because of it (writers should remember this)
2ND: The time rafting (everyone is doing it) was over-cooked - It ain't new and this one really took it over-the-top. A big negative. IMO
The diamond metaphor (more time and page wasting - only cosmically this time - haha) yawn.
3RD: The story was compelling - if not that original.
There were certainly moments in this book filled with real good stuff And honestly as a whole, I was mostly interested in it.
Still, I kept getting the feeling, our the author felt the need to write something "Bigger and Better". The American Yuppie's flaw. (This flaw is killing our world - another topic) It simply was not a brilliant book IMO.
It screamed of a need for some self control and self editing by the author (and it would have been better for it). Maybe then, he could have written it in 5 years instead of 10 years. And, we now could be reading the next in his Diamond series.
4th: AGAIN! Absolutely, this was NOT Historical Fiction - it was a fictional idea set in a time motif. These days, this genre is as beleaguered as St Malo was in Sept. 44. We need the library police to start dealing with this problem.
I know, I sound mostly negative. But, the story and some really good writing (in spite of himself) made this a very good book. IMO
Downgrade to 4.5 GR STARS HAHA
Paula wrote: "I felt the same way about The Book Thief. Couple of pages and I put it down. Based upon your review, Maciek, I don't think All the Light We Cannot See will be one for me either.
If anything, I'll try the audiobook and go from there.
Lot of mixed reviews on this one. Did enjoy your review! :)"
Thank you, Paula! :) I think that you can safely skip this book - I bet it's going to be turned into a film in a few years, which will likely be a better option to pick!
T wrote: "Mac: The further I got into it, the more I agreed with you. I'm finished now. And I did downgrade the book as I wound it down.
1ST: It's an overly large dose of the new-age wave of American ..."
Thank you for your two comments, T! I really like your description of the book as not historical fiction, but a fictional idea set in a time motif. It describes the book perfectly and I wish I came up with it when I was writing my review! I like your description of the rococo writing, which is also really accurate. I'm glad you were able to enjoy the story nonetheless and got something out of it. :)
Warning, spoilers above and below!
Glenn wrote: "I'm not sure that your comment about the lack of moral or ethical choices is accurate. Werner hides the truth about Marie-Laura's radio signal and eventually kills von Rumpel. This decision - to protect Marie-Laura - he knows may cost the lives of his friends and fellow soldiers. He practically gives his life to save Marie-Laura.
I think my point still stands. The important question to ask is what choices do the characters make, and why? Werner doesn't display much devotion to Nazism but at the same time doesn't reject it - he just goes along with it, as if there was nothing better to do. It's not until the very end that he makes a choice to save Marie Laurie - which doesn't come as a surprise, as their meeting was telegraphed from the moment we discover the novel's alternating chapters. Essentially, Werner exists only to provide a counterpoint to Marie Laurie's character and eventually become her savior. There's not much more to his character, which is perhaps why the author simply disposes of him by having Werner walk into a minefield and conveniently blow himself up at the end. There's not much to Von Rumpel - he's a stereotypic mustache-twirling villain. Even his name is cartoonish (Can anyone imagine a serious Nazi with a name Von Rumpel?).
Glenn wrote: "Frederick refuses to throw water on the prisoner and pays dearly. He is in fact the one character who we see show kindness to a Jewish woman. Indeed, Frederick is one big moral choice staring us, and the other characters, straight in the eye.
Frederick is actually an interesting character in the book, because he makes a moral choice - he doesn't agree with the abuse of a prisoner, and acts accordingly with his feelings. Why did Frederick act this way, and Werner didn't? His choice is not as much made as shown, as Frederick is then firmly deported from the page and reduced into a prop for Werner to muse on. Because showing kindness to a Jewish woman is good and Nazis are bad, you know?
Glenn wrote: "In using that radio, transmitting numbers baked into bread, they were making tough life or death choices. This challenge to act, to move beyond your limitations and fears, to not just do what everyone else was doing, or not doing, is something all the characters must do in the novel.
Was there really a challenge? Was there really any question as to whether Marie Laurie would continue broadcasting the message? She is set up as a character to sympathize and cheer for - handicapped by blindness, on a good mission. Does anyone ever truly doubts that she will fail? Does Marie herself ever truly doubt her mission, or even consider abandoning it? Try to run away from it in fear of her life? No, which isn't convincing, because even Jesus of Nazareth had his moments.
Glenn wrote: "Also, why must a novel set in WW2 contain graphic depictions of violence and war? Does doubt linger in any mind about the brutality and violence of war? Must we be bathed in blood just because it's set in a war? Cannot the educated mind create the context without the author having to beat us over the head with it? I was constantly aware of the menace and threat that marauded beneath every word.
I would argue that yes, especially if it concerns soldiers and the resistance. War is generally a horrible thing, and World War 2 was particularly terrible. It's the deadliest conflict in history where from 60 to 80 million people died, often in terrible conditions. They were literally bathed in blood, feces, and their own remains. War is also usually a time of shortage - things smell and decay, people soil themselves and die from infection and starvation. If you set your work during a war - particularly during a siege - you have to convey all of this, or else you'll just come with a romantic but empty background for an adventure for characters to have. It's not just menace or sense of encroaching danger, but the whole world where such menacing danger takes place. If it's watered down it'll simply look watered down, as it does here.
Glenn wrote: "You claim the author's hand is too apparent. Well, in your review, your personal biases and assumptions are equally too apparent. This reads more like an opinion piece, rather than a review.
I could turn it the other way round - in your comment on my review your own biases and assumptions are equally to apparent, as you obviously enjoyed the book and disagree strongly with me on it, and have your own opinion (bias?) on how a review should look like. Who is right - me? you? How can a review be written without the reviewer including at least some of his/hers opinion in it? I try to emphasize the fact that I do indeed do that in my reviews, as otherwise all I could write about the book would be technical data such as page number and publishing year. With works of fiction such as this one we have very little to write about besides our opinions on them (which are of course backed by many things - our personal taste, comparisons to others books that we read, etc.)
Glenn wrote: "And of course, stating your opinion of a novel is fine and part of the benefits and fun of sharing here on good reads. However, there's a big difference between opinion dressed up in fancy words and a review and, it seems to me, your words are all looking rather dapper.
It's a shame that you didn't include the explanation of what the big difference actually is - either way, I'd take your remark as a compliment.
Love them fancy words! Cheers and thanks for commenting.
Good review. I felt the same way. It had an over-wrought quality, ornamental, without a lot of depth. I wondered why I couldn't connect with the characters, but you nailed it with "Doerr's characters lack moral complexity which would make them properly engaging." The book had all the charming shallowness of a children's book (except the one jarring rape chapter toward the end).
Thank you, Jennifer! I can see why this book would appeal to many readers but I'm not one of them. Your description matches my impression perfectly - "over-wrought quality, ornamental, without a lot of depth". It could as well be addressed to younger readers (maybe not children, but teenagers) if not for the few moments of violence that actually happen.
Glenn wrote: "As history tells us, the Normandy invasions by the Allies took place on June 6 1944. After Italy and Germany occupied France in 1940, France, and most of occupied Europe, saw no front line fighting until Russia and the Allies began winning the war in 1944. As such, Werner, Volkheimer and von Rumpel were able to move around within occupied Europe with relative freedom and ease. You'll recall that, in one instance, Werner and his team were hunting partisans in Vienna, which had been annexed to Germany. So naturally, there was no front line action for them to contend with. Ergo, no reason for Doerr to add it. And if we consider Saint Malo, which saw no major front line fighting until the Allied bombings in August/September 1944, it only stands to reason that Doerr would not include frontline horror.
This is obviously true - ironically the biggest destruction that Saint Malo received during the war came from the allied bombing, as the occupying Germans would not surrender. I am not however arguing for introducing frontline action to a place which historically saw none - resistance is obviously not limited to the front lines, and can take many forms - such as insurgency and uprisings. My comment was made in reference to general conditions regarding the war and how - according to me - it should be represented in fiction to not look unrealistic and watered down.
Glenn wrote: "Ergo, the residents of Saint Malo would have lived fairly 'normal' lives, contending only with the whims and restrictions imposed by Nazi Occupiers rather than with bombs and blood. And von Rumpel moved around in areas firmly and safely within Nazi control. So, it would have been inaccurate for Doerr to shoehorn in frontline carnage where it doesn't belong."
This is a good point, but I think it serves against the book rather than in its favor. If citizens of Saint Malo were living fairly "normal lives" and had to contend only with various whims and restrictions of occupying Nazi forces - which for all I know is true - but there also was not much of a resistance movement in that particular town, and no major insurgents and/or partisans who would actively resist the Nazis. (at least none that I know of). Saint Malo is now remembered mostly for the resistance put by the Nazis against the advancing allied forces, which resulted in total destruction of most of the city.
What is in fact shoehorned into Saint Malo is Doerr's story and characters - fictional and predictable in an obvious way, with equally obvious motivations and roles given to them by the author, which I specified in my previous comment.
Glenn wrote: "You helpfully remind us in your response of the profound horror that was WW2. I don't think any educated individual amongst us harbours any doubts concerning that. However, in doing so, you only give credence to my initial assertion that, again, educated individuals can approach a WW2 story with all the background and context firmly and previously installed in our minds vis a vis high school history lessons and the veritable plethora of hollywood films reminding us of the same ad nauseam. It's fair for an author to assume we come to such a text without having to butcher some babies to make sure we're all on the same page.
For many westerners World War 2 is known and remembered as "The Good War" - the war against fascism and nazism, and for democracy and freedom - now a classic example of good versus evil, a memory which is now firmly enshrined in history lessons and has been immortalized in many Hollywood films. It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of these films focus on Allied campaigns on the Western Front, in Asia and North Africa, which help reinforce memory of the Good War and imprint it in cultural memory, overshadowing the Eastern Front and what British historian Tymothy Snyder calls "Bloodlands" - the part of Europe where the heaviest and bloodiest fighting in history took place. You would be surprised at how many individuals, even educated ones, have little knowledge about that important part of the war (being Polish I can refer you to the now notorious phrase of "Polish concentration/extermination camps, referring to German camps built in occupied Poland. The fact that this is a controversy to this day speaks a lot).
Glenn wrote: "There are many more stories to tell about WW2, stories that happened far from the death camps and front lines. There are the stories of the everyday people living far from the front but firmly within Nazi occupied Europe. The stories of how people survived and resisted Nazi occupation. And many of those stories have weapons with no more horrifying or destructive force than attic radios and pieces of paper baked into bread.
Again, you betray your limited and rigid perspective on wartime stories/settings by banging on about the horror of WW2, and it's presence in a WW2 novel to give the it legitimacy. The blood and the gore, while making the biggest noise, were only but one part of the struggle.
The struggle of WW2 also included blind girls, men shattered by WW1, orphans, nuns, elderly women and so on. They, too, have very important stories to tell, or have told.
This is a fair point and I would agree with it, though with certain exceptions. You largely ignore my specific criticisms of the book and focus instead on my general remarks concerning general representation of World War 2 in fiction (since they form just a single part of my multiple paragraph comment I would say that it's you who keeps banging on about them, not me). I agree that there certainly are characters who deserve to have their stories told to a wider audience - but continue to argue that none of them exist in this book (see my comment above). With this book, Doerr reinforces the romantic notion of the Good War: Marie-Laurie is a charismatic and good protagonist for whom we cannot not root for, while Von Rumpel and the Nazis are bad villains whom we cannot help but despise; Werner, the young German boy, could save the book by bringing at least some moral ambiguity into this clear-cut black and white world, but he is in fact the biggest disappointment, as I stated above.
Glenn wrote: "I recently lived in Albania for two years and when people told stories of the Nazi occupation, tales of bloodshed and atrocities are few and far between. Indeed, Albania gives us one of the most incredible stories of WW2. It's a story not many know and it is a very powerful story with profound resonance today.
Albania was the only country in Europe to have more Jews living in it after than war than before the war. Stop and think about that for a moment. A nation of Muslims gave shelter to Jews from the Nazis. They risked their lives and families to shield Jews when many European countries handed them over. And they did this without guns and bombs and blood. They did it quietly. They had to.
Here is one example of the many many stories of resistance and survival during war time Europe that doesn't include front line carnage. Any fictionalised retelling of this particular story from Albania that included the gore you so desperately require would be inaccurate and, I feel, cheapen the quiet yet harrowing bravery of mountain peasants defying the Nazis with nothing more than a promise to give shelter to strangers in need. In Albanian, the word is called Besa - the promise - and it compels Albanians to protect strangers on their land. It's a code of hospitality that underpins their whole society.
The Muslim Albanians fought the Nazis with a weapon no more destructive and bloody than .... hospitality.
This is a great story and I'd like to thank you for sharing it here. I completely agree with you - this is an incredible story that not many know. It is also much more interesting - an important - that anything Anthony Doerr came up with his book.
Again, I do not require a forceful insertion of gore (who's banging on about it now?) into any/i> work set during World War 2 - only where it obviously should be included. A good example of a popular novel set during World War 2 is David Benioff's City of Thieves - set during the siege of Leningrad, presenting an engaging, fictional plot with equally engaging characters and at the same time adequately describing real, historical conditions of Leningrad during the blockade - with all the shortages, cold and enormous hunger. It contains plenty of gory details - but it would be very inappropriate to not include them in a book set in that time and place.
Your memories from Albania present another point - why does even there have to be a fictionalized retelling of that history? Isn't the real story powerful and compelling enough? This is a problem I have with many novels set during World War 2. We have a plethora of real histories with real people, which show and teach us all that we need to know about the war. What could possibly the fictionalization of these events tell us that the real events don't?
Glenn wrote: "No, a story set in WW2 is not required to include gore and frontline carnage to be a novel set in WW2. Doerr's novel is not set within the context of the frontline, ergo it includes none of the horror until the bombings of 1944, which Doerr does include. It's not set in a death camp, so it doesn't include those horrors either.
Yes, I think you have made your point by now - for about the 5th time. I hope we can finally lay the matter down to rest.
Glenn wrote: "Doerr seems to be interested in one of these other stories, which are equally powerful and every bit as legitimate in the record of survival and resistance during war time, whether they include atrocities or not.
I can't know what Anthony Doerr seems to be interested in since I'm not him, but after reading the book I can only say what he did - he crafted a fictional story out of the whole cloth, and based it in a picturesque French town during World War 2. As I have argued in my review and comments, his story is neither powerful nor legitimate and not even particularly interesting, especially in light of real stories of resistance, which are infinitely more important but virtually unknown - such as your own example of Albanian resistance. But then again everybody knows of France and D-Day, and those who do might not know that Albania even exists - let alone specific details from its history. I suspect that this book will soon be made into a film, which will gross plenty and will be well received - and both will be shelved along other books and films in the canon of the Good War.
Maciek wrote: "Glenn wrote: "As history tells us, the Normandy invasions by the Allies took place on June 6 1944. After Italy and Germany occupied France in 1940, France, and most of occupied Europe, saw no front..."
Maciek-
Your comments here on this thread are just like all of your reviews: thoughtful, intelligent, objective, organized, and provide context when needed. Don't stop being awesome.
Elizabeth wrote: Maciek wrote: "Glenn wrote: "As history tells us, the Normandy invasions by the Allies took place on June 6 1944. After Italy and Germany occupied France in 1940, France, and most of occupied Europe, saw no front..."
Maciek-
Your comments here on this thread are just like all of your reviews: thoughtful, intelligent, objective, organized, and provide context when needed. Don't stop being awesome. "
Thank you, Elizabeth! You made my day. :)
Maciek wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: Maciek wrote: "Glenn wrote: "As history tells us, the Normandy invasions by the Allies took place on June 6 1944. After Italy and Germany occupied France in 1940, France, and most ..."
:)
Another book I was about to mark as to-read, another Maciek review to dissuade me from doing so :)
Your thoughts on this are very similar to review I read in the paper the other day from a Norwegian critic. She also made a point of how American readers/critics seem to have weakness for literature riddled with European art and history (as if that makes the story any better) - a yearning for something they feel they lack?
Paul Martin wrote: "Another book I was about to mark as to-read, another Maciek review to dissuade me from doing so :)
Your thoughts on this are very similar to review I read in the paper the other day from a Norwegi..."
That's a very astute comment, Paul. And Maciek is a good watchdog for quality control in books.
Paul Martin wrote: "Another book I was about to mark as to-read, another Maciek review to dissuade me from doing so :)
Your thoughts on this are very similar to review I read in the paper the other day from a Norwegian critic. She also made a point of how American readers/critics seem to have weakness for literature riddled with European art and history (as if that makes the story any better) - a yearning for something they feel they lack? "
Thank you, Paul! You won't be missing out on anything if you skip this book.
History makes for fascinating reading for all readers, and not necessarily because they might lack something - this period of world history is of particular interest since it's relatively recent and provides for plenty of opportunities to craft an entertaining storyline. Also, for many readers on the other side of the ocean it's possibly pretty exotic - appealing in the way that it's not history that they have immediate access to in cultural and geographical terms, which is why it could be appealing to them. For better or worse this history and art has shaped much of the world as we know it now, and remains a complex and fascinating subject.
Richard wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "Another book I was about to mark as to-read, another Maciek review to dissuade me from doing so :)
Your thoughts on this are very similar to review I read in the paper the other day from a Norwegi..."
That's a very astute comment, Paul. And Maciek is a good watchdog for quality control in books. "
Thank you, Richard! I do my best so you guys don't have to read bad books. :)
Richard wrote: "Maciek is a good watchdog for quality control in books."
Maciek wrote: "For better or worse this history and art has shaped much of the world as we know it now, and remains a complex and fascinating subject. "
True, true.
I just finished this and feel pretty much the same. I enjoyed the book but it didn't grab me and break me the way most WW2 books do. I never felt emotionally connected to any character except maybe Fredrick and I thought it was too glossy and fluffy for a WW2 story. When I read books set during those years I WANT to have my heart broken. I think we owe it to the victims and survivors to immerse ourselves in their lives and see just how devastating their stories were and I hate that this book didn't give that to me.
Great review!
I have tried reading it twice but I always end up losing interest and picking up another book off my reading list. I have a huge, ever sprawling reading list that I need to be done with before my vacations end. Do you think I should resume reading it (this time till the end) or should I just let it be?
Silvia wrote: "Sadly, it would seem that the most successful novels these days are written for simpletons with short attention span."
I truly appreciate this review because it brought a different perspective and now I'm considering things that I did not by reading it. I loved the book, and seeing the author's hand in it actually made me love it more. I can see why it would not be that way for everyone.
I think it's sad that there is an implication in the comments that anyone who likes this book is a "simpleton" with a "short attention span." Just because someone likes a book that you don't, doesn't make them stupid. THAT is a very simplistic way of looking at things. As a teacher, I refuse to devalue literature like that. It won the freaking Pulitzer, for goodness sake. Are you saying all those people are stupid? Thanks to the comments that weren't so elitist and unkind. I don't like every book I read, but I try not to judge others for liking things I do not.
Megan Highfill said it. I would probably not have been as kind to the pretentiousness of the reviewers she mentions. I don't know why I continued to read the initial review because I usually don't go further than the first line in a review that does a "book report."
Thanks for this really objective and articulate review! I'm a little more than halfway through this now and feeling less and less compelled by the story yet obliged to finish it somehow. Probably because the two protagonists are so young and vulnerable that I just want to see if they'll turn out okay? Calling it "PG-13" totally nails it for me. The characters do come across as flat and stylized, like convenient archetypes created to make this plot plausible. Would also not consider this true historical fiction. The WWII setting feels like a convenient backdrop and not actually the point of the novel. In fact the characterization of Frenchness and Germanness feel quite under-realized throughout. It's been really hard to get a satisfying picture of culture, class and society from this book, even though there were plenty of instances to explore these. Anyway, will see how I feel by the end of it!
For some reason Goodreads didn't give me any notification about new comments, and I missed them all - sorry everyone! Will respond to them now.
Ashley wrote: "I just finished this and feel pretty much the same. I enjoyed the book but it didn't grab me and break me the way most WW2 books do. I never felt emotionally connected to any character except maybe Fredrick and I thought it was too glossy and fluffy for a WW2 story. When I read books set during those years I WANT to have my heart broken. I think we owe it to the victims and survivors to immerse ourselves in their lives and see just how devastating their stories were and I hate that this book didn't give that to me.
Great review!"
Thank you, Ashley! I don't necessarily need my heart to be broken in order to enjoy a book, but I'm always irritated at stories which water down real, historical horror, and turn it into fluff for what can only be seen as commercialization - trying to create a book which would appeal to as wide an audience as possible, reach bestseller lists, etc. It is easy to go overboard with having the character suffer every possible misfortune and tragedy, but I think that simplifying such events and largely eliminating them is even worse.
Megan wrote: "Silvia wrote: "Sadly, it would seem that the most successful novels these days are written for simpletons with short attention span."
I truly appreciate this review because it brought a different perspective and now I'm considering things that I did not by reading it. I loved the book, and seeing the author's hand in it actually made me love it more. I can see why it would not be that way for everyone.
I think it's sad that there is an implication in the comments that anyone who likes this book is a "simpleton" with a "short attention span." Just because someone likes a book that you don't, doesn't make them stupid. THAT is a very simplistic way of looking at things. As a teacher, I refuse to devalue literature like that. It won the freaking Pulitzer, for goodness sake. Are you saying all those people are stupid? Thanks to the comments that weren't so elitist and unkind. I don't like every book I read, but I try not to judge others for liking things I do not. ."
Thank you, Megan! I'm glad you liked my review and that it helped you see aspects of the book you might not have considered before. I often read negative reviews of books that I like for precisely this reason.
I agree with you regarding comments, but would be vary about judging books based on the prizes their won. I honestly don't care if the book won a Pulitzer, or not - the Pulizer is all over the place; many of the winners are now classic novels, but many also are completely forgotten and barely read. Last year's winner was Donna Tartt's The Goldfinch - which was another incredibly popular novel, and another which I had serious complaints about. Either way, glad you liked the book and thank you again for commenting!
Peggy wrote: "Megan Highfill said it. I would probably not have been as kind to the pretentiousness of the reviewers she mentions. I don't know why I continued to read the initial review because I usually don't go further than the first line in a review that does a "book report." "
I don't really know what constitutes a book report - isn't a review supposed to be a report on a book, aiming to tell others how it is and what we think of it? Anyway, thanks for stopping by!
Rabeea wrote: "have tried reading it twice but I always end up losing interest and picking up another book off my reading list. I have a huge, ever sprawling reading list that I need to be done with before my vacations end. Do you think I should resume reading it (this time till the end) or should I just let it be? "
I think you won't miss anything by not reading this book, Rabea - I'm sure that sooner or later it will be adapted into a major blockbuster film, so you'll have the chance to experience the story then. No need to force yourself into reading something that you don't enjoy.
Thanks for responding to all the comments! I appreciate the discussion.
back to top
message 1:
by
reading is my hustle
(new)
Feb 19, 2015 02:05PM
had a feeling you would rate this 2 stars!
reply
|
flag
Elizabeth wrote: "had a feeling you would rate this 2 stars!"Ha! But how come? :)
Oh wow! Are you going to write a review, Maciek? I've been strongly considering this one after some very positive I've read and would of course be interested in your take on it.
Of course, Reanto! I'm writing one as we speak. I have so many reviews to write I think I'm going to take a day off just to get through with them. LOL! :)
Maciek wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "had a feeling you would rate this 2 stars!"Ha! But how come? :)"
i think it is from reading your reviews over the past couple of years. i must have a feel for what you will like? when I saw that you were reading this one I was glad b/c i wonder if your review will reflect some of my thoughts about the book.
You know me well! :) I'd post the review soon and will comment here so that you'll know it's up! Should be done sometime tomorrow.
Sorry for the delay, everyone! Review is now done. :)
Thanks for this, Maciek. You listed your 'problems' with it in a very objective and simple way which makes it easy to agree and understand. I don't like a book when I get the feeling that certain bits were written with an agenda behind, kind of like a film where they add the sentimental soundtrack to an otherwise simple scene just to make sure you will cry. I enjoyed how you said you could see his hand behind the scenes. Perfectly put!
Sadly, it would seem that the most successful novels these days are written for simpletons with short attention span.
Love your review. I was never even tempted to pick this one up - it sounded constructed and unrealistic even in the blurbs. Much the same as The Book Thief, which i read and hated.
Renato wrote: "Thanks for this, Maciek. You listed your 'problems' with it in a very objective and simple way which makes it easy to agree and understand. I don't like a book when I get the feeling that certain bits were written with an agenda behind, kind of like a film where they add the sentimental soundtrack to an otherwise simple scene just to make sure you will cry. I enjoyed how you said you could see his hand behind the scenes. Perfectly put! "Thank you, Renato! This is exactly what happened in the book - I could never stop seeing the author behind his creations. It obviously appealed to lots of readers, but left me cold.
Silvia wrote: "Sadly, it would seem that the most successful novels these days are written for simpletons with short attention span."True! While there are short novels with short chapters which aim for more than that (such as Steps, a forgotten gem), but this structure remains largely a sign of a troubling syndrome - fiction written to be shorter, faster, and easier to quickly gobble up and move on from.
Karo wrote: "Love your review. I was never even tempted to pick this one up - it sounded constructed and unrealistic even in the blurbs. Much the same as The Book Thief, which i read and hated."Thank you, Karo! I didn't even bother with The Book Thief because I thought it'd be pretty much that. No use reading this book, unless you're a glutton for punishment and haven't had enough yet. ;)
I love it when you find the books with enough "moral complexity" to satisfy your quest for excellence. And I appreciate your efforts to spell out exactly why an author doesn't connect for you. For me, I found enough depth in this and metaphorical richness for my tastes. I empathize with your sense of it having a PG-13 feel and have a similar reaction over the limited benefit of the diamond subplot. Still this sang for me, and it's not because I have a short attention span. Maybe I was ready for a different angle on the resilience of life despite the war. It's been 30 years since I was blown away by Kosinski's horrific take on a child's perspective, a writer whom I see hits the right spot for you.
Thank you, Michael - glad you enjoyed the book! Your review was one of those that made me want to read it. I think it's a matter of different tastes - I see how the book would appeal to many readers, but it just wasn't for me for reasons I stated above. Kosiński's book is an entirely different league - I really need to review it properly, and soon!
...Werner neither openly embraces Nazism, nor condemns it - he's indifferent to the whole experience and role he plays. i practically said the same thing!
drove me crazy, that.
also, This is World War 2, PG-13...
yep, exactly.
enjoyed your review, maciek. :)
Thank you, Elizabeth! Great minds etc. :)
A wonderful review, Maciek. I'm not bothering to read it. Not after "A Constellation of Vital Phenomena". :)
Thank you, Paula! I wanted to read the book you mentioned as well, but now I think I'll skip it if it reminded you of this one!
Don't skip it! I should have explained myself more fully. A Constellation of Vital Phenomena is a wonderful book and one of my favorites. It just seems that their are so many books out there now about war. I am hesitant to read another one unless it is exceptional. (The Sojourn was also a great read).
Look forward to your thoughts once you have read A Constellation...
Thank you for clarifying, Paula! I thought that "A Constellation..." was a poor book that you didn't like, and this reminded you of it. I'd be sure to give it a try after hearing how much you enjoyed it. :)I agree - this is not a bad thing by itself, but most of the time it's genuinely hard to write about war - any war - without simplifying it or resorting to cliches. I wanted to read this book because of all the rave reviews - should have known better!
Maciek, your description of this makes me think of The Book Thief. I had the same sort of reaction to that as you did toward this one.
I felt the same way about The Book Thief. Couple of pages and I put it down. Based upon your review, Maciek, I don't think All the Light We Cannot See will be one for me either.If anything, I'll try the audiobook and go from there.
Lot of mixed reviews on this one. Did enjoy your review! :)
Mac: Unfinished at this time. Will be done in about 2 days? I can see how someone could object to this book on the basis you have.
I think it is tyical of many fine books that are being tossed into the fray of late. The there is little new in terms of style
To me it is NOT historical fiction.
Unlike, you I'm enjoying it for what it is.
If it has a fault for me, it is that is is overwritten at times. Many times, less would have been better -IMO. And, I'm not expecting every book to read like "The Reader" by Schlink either.
Was it my best Best Historical Fiction of 2014? - Nope! How could it have been???
But, it is a fine 4.75 GR Star read - I'm an easy grader
Mac: The further I got into it, the more I agreed with you. I'm finished now. And I did downgrade the book as I wound it down. 1ST: It's an overly large dose of the new-age wave of American baroque rococo writing. Will someone please tell them to stop it! Enough is enough. Less is usually better.
Besides, everyone cannot not be a Pynchon. And, Pynchon writes for himself and he is hard to read because of it (writers should remember this)
2ND: The time rafting (everyone is doing it) was over-cooked - It ain't new and this one really took it over-the-top. A big negative. IMO
The diamond metaphor (more time and page wasting - only cosmically this time - haha) yawn.
3RD: The story was compelling - if not that original.
There were certainly moments in this book filled with real good stuff And honestly as a whole, I was mostly interested in it.
Still, I kept getting the feeling, our the author felt the need to write something "Bigger and Better". The American Yuppie's flaw. (This flaw is killing our world - another topic) It simply was not a brilliant book IMO.
It screamed of a need for some self control and self editing by the author (and it would have been better for it). Maybe then, he could have written it in 5 years instead of 10 years. And, we now could be reading the next in his Diamond series.
4th: AGAIN! Absolutely, this was NOT Historical Fiction - it was a fictional idea set in a time motif. These days, this genre is as beleaguered as St Malo was in Sept. 44. We need the library police to start dealing with this problem.
I know, I sound mostly negative. But, the story and some really good writing (in spite of himself) made this a very good book. IMO
Downgrade to 4.5 GR STARS HAHA
Paula wrote: "I felt the same way about The Book Thief. Couple of pages and I put it down. Based upon your review, Maciek, I don't think All the Light We Cannot See will be one for me either.If anything, I'll try the audiobook and go from there.
Lot of mixed reviews on this one. Did enjoy your review! :)"
Thank you, Paula! :) I think that you can safely skip this book - I bet it's going to be turned into a film in a few years, which will likely be a better option to pick!
T wrote: "Mac: The further I got into it, the more I agreed with you. I'm finished now. And I did downgrade the book as I wound it down. 1ST: It's an overly large dose of the new-age wave of American ..."
Thank you for your two comments, T! I really like your description of the book as not historical fiction, but a fictional idea set in a time motif. It describes the book perfectly and I wish I came up with it when I was writing my review! I like your description of the rococo writing, which is also really accurate. I'm glad you were able to enjoy the story nonetheless and got something out of it. :)
Warning, spoilers above and below!Glenn wrote: "I'm not sure that your comment about the lack of moral or ethical choices is accurate. Werner hides the truth about Marie-Laura's radio signal and eventually kills von Rumpel. This decision - to protect Marie-Laura - he knows may cost the lives of his friends and fellow soldiers. He practically gives his life to save Marie-Laura.
I think my point still stands. The important question to ask is what choices do the characters make, and why? Werner doesn't display much devotion to Nazism but at the same time doesn't reject it - he just goes along with it, as if there was nothing better to do. It's not until the very end that he makes a choice to save Marie Laurie - which doesn't come as a surprise, as their meeting was telegraphed from the moment we discover the novel's alternating chapters. Essentially, Werner exists only to provide a counterpoint to Marie Laurie's character and eventually become her savior. There's not much more to his character, which is perhaps why the author simply disposes of him by having Werner walk into a minefield and conveniently blow himself up at the end. There's not much to Von Rumpel - he's a stereotypic mustache-twirling villain. Even his name is cartoonish (Can anyone imagine a serious Nazi with a name Von Rumpel?).
Glenn wrote: "Frederick refuses to throw water on the prisoner and pays dearly. He is in fact the one character who we see show kindness to a Jewish woman. Indeed, Frederick is one big moral choice staring us, and the other characters, straight in the eye.
Frederick is actually an interesting character in the book, because he makes a moral choice - he doesn't agree with the abuse of a prisoner, and acts accordingly with his feelings. Why did Frederick act this way, and Werner didn't? His choice is not as much made as shown, as Frederick is then firmly deported from the page and reduced into a prop for Werner to muse on. Because showing kindness to a Jewish woman is good and Nazis are bad, you know?
Glenn wrote: "In using that radio, transmitting numbers baked into bread, they were making tough life or death choices. This challenge to act, to move beyond your limitations and fears, to not just do what everyone else was doing, or not doing, is something all the characters must do in the novel.
Was there really a challenge? Was there really any question as to whether Marie Laurie would continue broadcasting the message? She is set up as a character to sympathize and cheer for - handicapped by blindness, on a good mission. Does anyone ever truly doubts that she will fail? Does Marie herself ever truly doubt her mission, or even consider abandoning it? Try to run away from it in fear of her life? No, which isn't convincing, because even Jesus of Nazareth had his moments.
Glenn wrote: "Also, why must a novel set in WW2 contain graphic depictions of violence and war? Does doubt linger in any mind about the brutality and violence of war? Must we be bathed in blood just because it's set in a war? Cannot the educated mind create the context without the author having to beat us over the head with it? I was constantly aware of the menace and threat that marauded beneath every word.
I would argue that yes, especially if it concerns soldiers and the resistance. War is generally a horrible thing, and World War 2 was particularly terrible. It's the deadliest conflict in history where from 60 to 80 million people died, often in terrible conditions. They were literally bathed in blood, feces, and their own remains. War is also usually a time of shortage - things smell and decay, people soil themselves and die from infection and starvation. If you set your work during a war - particularly during a siege - you have to convey all of this, or else you'll just come with a romantic but empty background for an adventure for characters to have. It's not just menace or sense of encroaching danger, but the whole world where such menacing danger takes place. If it's watered down it'll simply look watered down, as it does here.
Glenn wrote: "You claim the author's hand is too apparent. Well, in your review, your personal biases and assumptions are equally too apparent. This reads more like an opinion piece, rather than a review.
I could turn it the other way round - in your comment on my review your own biases and assumptions are equally to apparent, as you obviously enjoyed the book and disagree strongly with me on it, and have your own opinion (bias?) on how a review should look like. Who is right - me? you? How can a review be written without the reviewer including at least some of his/hers opinion in it? I try to emphasize the fact that I do indeed do that in my reviews, as otherwise all I could write about the book would be technical data such as page number and publishing year. With works of fiction such as this one we have very little to write about besides our opinions on them (which are of course backed by many things - our personal taste, comparisons to others books that we read, etc.)
Glenn wrote: "And of course, stating your opinion of a novel is fine and part of the benefits and fun of sharing here on good reads. However, there's a big difference between opinion dressed up in fancy words and a review and, it seems to me, your words are all looking rather dapper.
It's a shame that you didn't include the explanation of what the big difference actually is - either way, I'd take your remark as a compliment.
Love them fancy words! Cheers and thanks for commenting.
Good review. I felt the same way. It had an over-wrought quality, ornamental, without a lot of depth. I wondered why I couldn't connect with the characters, but you nailed it with "Doerr's characters lack moral complexity which would make them properly engaging." The book had all the charming shallowness of a children's book (except the one jarring rape chapter toward the end).
Thank you, Jennifer! I can see why this book would appeal to many readers but I'm not one of them. Your description matches my impression perfectly - "over-wrought quality, ornamental, without a lot of depth". It could as well be addressed to younger readers (maybe not children, but teenagers) if not for the few moments of violence that actually happen.
Glenn wrote: "As history tells us, the Normandy invasions by the Allies took place on June 6 1944. After Italy and Germany occupied France in 1940, France, and most of occupied Europe, saw no front line fighting until Russia and the Allies began winning the war in 1944. As such, Werner, Volkheimer and von Rumpel were able to move around within occupied Europe with relative freedom and ease. You'll recall that, in one instance, Werner and his team were hunting partisans in Vienna, which had been annexed to Germany. So naturally, there was no front line action for them to contend with. Ergo, no reason for Doerr to add it. And if we consider Saint Malo, which saw no major front line fighting until the Allied bombings in August/September 1944, it only stands to reason that Doerr would not include frontline horror.This is obviously true - ironically the biggest destruction that Saint Malo received during the war came from the allied bombing, as the occupying Germans would not surrender. I am not however arguing for introducing frontline action to a place which historically saw none - resistance is obviously not limited to the front lines, and can take many forms - such as insurgency and uprisings. My comment was made in reference to general conditions regarding the war and how - according to me - it should be represented in fiction to not look unrealistic and watered down.
Glenn wrote: "Ergo, the residents of Saint Malo would have lived fairly 'normal' lives, contending only with the whims and restrictions imposed by Nazi Occupiers rather than with bombs and blood. And von Rumpel moved around in areas firmly and safely within Nazi control. So, it would have been inaccurate for Doerr to shoehorn in frontline carnage where it doesn't belong."
This is a good point, but I think it serves against the book rather than in its favor. If citizens of Saint Malo were living fairly "normal lives" and had to contend only with various whims and restrictions of occupying Nazi forces - which for all I know is true - but there also was not much of a resistance movement in that particular town, and no major insurgents and/or partisans who would actively resist the Nazis. (at least none that I know of). Saint Malo is now remembered mostly for the resistance put by the Nazis against the advancing allied forces, which resulted in total destruction of most of the city.
What is in fact shoehorned into Saint Malo is Doerr's story and characters - fictional and predictable in an obvious way, with equally obvious motivations and roles given to them by the author, which I specified in my previous comment.
Glenn wrote: "You helpfully remind us in your response of the profound horror that was WW2. I don't think any educated individual amongst us harbours any doubts concerning that. However, in doing so, you only give credence to my initial assertion that, again, educated individuals can approach a WW2 story with all the background and context firmly and previously installed in our minds vis a vis high school history lessons and the veritable plethora of hollywood films reminding us of the same ad nauseam. It's fair for an author to assume we come to such a text without having to butcher some babies to make sure we're all on the same page.
For many westerners World War 2 is known and remembered as "The Good War" - the war against fascism and nazism, and for democracy and freedom - now a classic example of good versus evil, a memory which is now firmly enshrined in history lessons and has been immortalized in many Hollywood films. It is important to note that the overwhelming majority of these films focus on Allied campaigns on the Western Front, in Asia and North Africa, which help reinforce memory of the Good War and imprint it in cultural memory, overshadowing the Eastern Front and what British historian Tymothy Snyder calls "Bloodlands" - the part of Europe where the heaviest and bloodiest fighting in history took place. You would be surprised at how many individuals, even educated ones, have little knowledge about that important part of the war (being Polish I can refer you to the now notorious phrase of "Polish concentration/extermination camps, referring to German camps built in occupied Poland. The fact that this is a controversy to this day speaks a lot).
Glenn wrote: "There are many more stories to tell about WW2, stories that happened far from the death camps and front lines. There are the stories of the everyday people living far from the front but firmly within Nazi occupied Europe. The stories of how people survived and resisted Nazi occupation. And many of those stories have weapons with no more horrifying or destructive force than attic radios and pieces of paper baked into bread.
Again, you betray your limited and rigid perspective on wartime stories/settings by banging on about the horror of WW2, and it's presence in a WW2 novel to give the it legitimacy. The blood and the gore, while making the biggest noise, were only but one part of the struggle.
The struggle of WW2 also included blind girls, men shattered by WW1, orphans, nuns, elderly women and so on. They, too, have very important stories to tell, or have told.
This is a fair point and I would agree with it, though with certain exceptions. You largely ignore my specific criticisms of the book and focus instead on my general remarks concerning general representation of World War 2 in fiction (since they form just a single part of my multiple paragraph comment I would say that it's you who keeps banging on about them, not me). I agree that there certainly are characters who deserve to have their stories told to a wider audience - but continue to argue that none of them exist in this book (see my comment above). With this book, Doerr reinforces the romantic notion of the Good War: Marie-Laurie is a charismatic and good protagonist for whom we cannot not root for, while Von Rumpel and the Nazis are bad villains whom we cannot help but despise; Werner, the young German boy, could save the book by bringing at least some moral ambiguity into this clear-cut black and white world, but he is in fact the biggest disappointment, as I stated above.
Glenn wrote: "I recently lived in Albania for two years and when people told stories of the Nazi occupation, tales of bloodshed and atrocities are few and far between. Indeed, Albania gives us one of the most incredible stories of WW2. It's a story not many know and it is a very powerful story with profound resonance today.
Albania was the only country in Europe to have more Jews living in it after than war than before the war. Stop and think about that for a moment. A nation of Muslims gave shelter to Jews from the Nazis. They risked their lives and families to shield Jews when many European countries handed them over. And they did this without guns and bombs and blood. They did it quietly. They had to.
Here is one example of the many many stories of resistance and survival during war time Europe that doesn't include front line carnage. Any fictionalised retelling of this particular story from Albania that included the gore you so desperately require would be inaccurate and, I feel, cheapen the quiet yet harrowing bravery of mountain peasants defying the Nazis with nothing more than a promise to give shelter to strangers in need. In Albanian, the word is called Besa - the promise - and it compels Albanians to protect strangers on their land. It's a code of hospitality that underpins their whole society.
The Muslim Albanians fought the Nazis with a weapon no more destructive and bloody than .... hospitality.
This is a great story and I'd like to thank you for sharing it here. I completely agree with you - this is an incredible story that not many know. It is also much more interesting - an important - that anything Anthony Doerr came up with his book.
Again, I do not require a forceful insertion of gore (who's banging on about it now?) into any/i> work set during World War 2 - only where it obviously should be included. A good example of a popular novel set during World War 2 is David Benioff's City of Thieves - set during the siege of Leningrad, presenting an engaging, fictional plot with equally engaging characters and at the same time adequately describing real, historical conditions of Leningrad during the blockade - with all the shortages, cold and enormous hunger. It contains plenty of gory details - but it would be very inappropriate to not include them in a book set in that time and place.
Your memories from Albania present another point - why does even there have to be a fictionalized retelling of that history? Isn't the real story powerful and compelling enough? This is a problem I have with many novels set during World War 2. We have a plethora of real histories with real people, which show and teach us all that we need to know about the war. What could possibly the fictionalization of these events tell us that the real events don't?
Glenn wrote: "No, a story set in WW2 is not required to include gore and frontline carnage to be a novel set in WW2. Doerr's novel is not set within the context of the frontline, ergo it includes none of the horror until the bombings of 1944, which Doerr does include. It's not set in a death camp, so it doesn't include those horrors either.
Yes, I think you have made your point by now - for about the 5th time. I hope we can finally lay the matter down to rest.
Glenn wrote: "Doerr seems to be interested in one of these other stories, which are equally powerful and every bit as legitimate in the record of survival and resistance during war time, whether they include atrocities or not.
I can't know what Anthony Doerr seems to be interested in since I'm not him, but after reading the book I can only say what he did - he crafted a fictional story out of the whole cloth, and based it in a picturesque French town during World War 2. As I have argued in my review and comments, his story is neither powerful nor legitimate and not even particularly interesting, especially in light of real stories of resistance, which are infinitely more important but virtually unknown - such as your own example of Albanian resistance. But then again everybody knows of France and D-Day, and those who do might not know that Albania even exists - let alone specific details from its history. I suspect that this book will soon be made into a film, which will gross plenty and will be well received - and both will be shelved along other books and films in the canon of the Good War.
Maciek wrote: "Glenn wrote: "As history tells us, the Normandy invasions by the Allies took place on June 6 1944. After Italy and Germany occupied France in 1940, France, and most of occupied Europe, saw no front..."Maciek-
Your comments here on this thread are just like all of your reviews: thoughtful, intelligent, objective, organized, and provide context when needed. Don't stop being awesome.
Elizabeth wrote: Maciek wrote: "Glenn wrote: "As history tells us, the Normandy invasions by the Allies took place on June 6 1944. After Italy and Germany occupied France in 1940, France, and most of occupied Europe, saw no front..."Maciek-
Your comments here on this thread are just like all of your reviews: thoughtful, intelligent, objective, organized, and provide context when needed. Don't stop being awesome. "
Thank you, Elizabeth! You made my day. :)
Maciek wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: Maciek wrote: "Glenn wrote: "As history tells us, the Normandy invasions by the Allies took place on June 6 1944. After Italy and Germany occupied France in 1940, France, and most ...":)
Another book I was about to mark as to-read, another Maciek review to dissuade me from doing so :)Your thoughts on this are very similar to review I read in the paper the other day from a Norwegian critic. She also made a point of how American readers/critics seem to have weakness for literature riddled with European art and history (as if that makes the story any better) - a yearning for something they feel they lack?
Paul Martin wrote: "Another book I was about to mark as to-read, another Maciek review to dissuade me from doing so :)Your thoughts on this are very similar to review I read in the paper the other day from a Norwegi..."
That's a very astute comment, Paul. And Maciek is a good watchdog for quality control in books.
Paul Martin wrote: "Another book I was about to mark as to-read, another Maciek review to dissuade me from doing so :)Your thoughts on this are very similar to review I read in the paper the other day from a Norwegian critic. She also made a point of how American readers/critics seem to have weakness for literature riddled with European art and history (as if that makes the story any better) - a yearning for something they feel they lack? "
Thank you, Paul! You won't be missing out on anything if you skip this book.
History makes for fascinating reading for all readers, and not necessarily because they might lack something - this period of world history is of particular interest since it's relatively recent and provides for plenty of opportunities to craft an entertaining storyline. Also, for many readers on the other side of the ocean it's possibly pretty exotic - appealing in the way that it's not history that they have immediate access to in cultural and geographical terms, which is why it could be appealing to them. For better or worse this history and art has shaped much of the world as we know it now, and remains a complex and fascinating subject.
Richard wrote: "Paul Martin wrote: "Another book I was about to mark as to-read, another Maciek review to dissuade me from doing so :)Your thoughts on this are very similar to review I read in the paper the other day from a Norwegi..."
That's a very astute comment, Paul. And Maciek is a good watchdog for quality control in books. "
Thank you, Richard! I do my best so you guys don't have to read bad books. :)
Richard wrote: "Maciek is a good watchdog for quality control in books."Maciek wrote: "For better or worse this history and art has shaped much of the world as we know it now, and remains a complex and fascinating subject. "
True, true.
I just finished this and feel pretty much the same. I enjoyed the book but it didn't grab me and break me the way most WW2 books do. I never felt emotionally connected to any character except maybe Fredrick and I thought it was too glossy and fluffy for a WW2 story. When I read books set during those years I WANT to have my heart broken. I think we owe it to the victims and survivors to immerse ourselves in their lives and see just how devastating their stories were and I hate that this book didn't give that to me. Great review!
I have tried reading it twice but I always end up losing interest and picking up another book off my reading list. I have a huge, ever sprawling reading list that I need to be done with before my vacations end. Do you think I should resume reading it (this time till the end) or should I just let it be?
Silvia wrote: "Sadly, it would seem that the most successful novels these days are written for simpletons with short attention span."I truly appreciate this review because it brought a different perspective and now I'm considering things that I did not by reading it. I loved the book, and seeing the author's hand in it actually made me love it more. I can see why it would not be that way for everyone.
I think it's sad that there is an implication in the comments that anyone who likes this book is a "simpleton" with a "short attention span." Just because someone likes a book that you don't, doesn't make them stupid. THAT is a very simplistic way of looking at things. As a teacher, I refuse to devalue literature like that. It won the freaking Pulitzer, for goodness sake. Are you saying all those people are stupid? Thanks to the comments that weren't so elitist and unkind. I don't like every book I read, but I try not to judge others for liking things I do not.
Megan Highfill said it. I would probably not have been as kind to the pretentiousness of the reviewers she mentions. I don't know why I continued to read the initial review because I usually don't go further than the first line in a review that does a "book report."
Thanks for this really objective and articulate review! I'm a little more than halfway through this now and feeling less and less compelled by the story yet obliged to finish it somehow. Probably because the two protagonists are so young and vulnerable that I just want to see if they'll turn out okay? Calling it "PG-13" totally nails it for me. The characters do come across as flat and stylized, like convenient archetypes created to make this plot plausible. Would also not consider this true historical fiction. The WWII setting feels like a convenient backdrop and not actually the point of the novel. In fact the characterization of Frenchness and Germanness feel quite under-realized throughout. It's been really hard to get a satisfying picture of culture, class and society from this book, even though there were plenty of instances to explore these. Anyway, will see how I feel by the end of it!
For some reason Goodreads didn't give me any notification about new comments, and I missed them all - sorry everyone! Will respond to them now. Ashley wrote: "I just finished this and feel pretty much the same. I enjoyed the book but it didn't grab me and break me the way most WW2 books do. I never felt emotionally connected to any character except maybe Fredrick and I thought it was too glossy and fluffy for a WW2 story. When I read books set during those years I WANT to have my heart broken. I think we owe it to the victims and survivors to immerse ourselves in their lives and see just how devastating their stories were and I hate that this book didn't give that to me.
Great review!"
Thank you, Ashley! I don't necessarily need my heart to be broken in order to enjoy a book, but I'm always irritated at stories which water down real, historical horror, and turn it into fluff for what can only be seen as commercialization - trying to create a book which would appeal to as wide an audience as possible, reach bestseller lists, etc. It is easy to go overboard with having the character suffer every possible misfortune and tragedy, but I think that simplifying such events and largely eliminating them is even worse.
Megan wrote: "Silvia wrote: "Sadly, it would seem that the most successful novels these days are written for simpletons with short attention span."I truly appreciate this review because it brought a different perspective and now I'm considering things that I did not by reading it. I loved the book, and seeing the author's hand in it actually made me love it more. I can see why it would not be that way for everyone.
I think it's sad that there is an implication in the comments that anyone who likes this book is a "simpleton" with a "short attention span." Just because someone likes a book that you don't, doesn't make them stupid. THAT is a very simplistic way of looking at things. As a teacher, I refuse to devalue literature like that. It won the freaking Pulitzer, for goodness sake. Are you saying all those people are stupid? Thanks to the comments that weren't so elitist and unkind. I don't like every book I read, but I try not to judge others for liking things I do not. ."
Thank you, Megan! I'm glad you liked my review and that it helped you see aspects of the book you might not have considered before. I often read negative reviews of books that I like for precisely this reason.
I agree with you regarding comments, but would be vary about judging books based on the prizes their won. I honestly don't care if the book won a Pulitzer, or not - the Pulizer is all over the place; many of the winners are now classic novels, but many also are completely forgotten and barely read. Last year's winner was Donna Tartt's The Goldfinch - which was another incredibly popular novel, and another which I had serious complaints about. Either way, glad you liked the book and thank you again for commenting!
Peggy wrote: "Megan Highfill said it. I would probably not have been as kind to the pretentiousness of the reviewers she mentions. I don't know why I continued to read the initial review because I usually don't go further than the first line in a review that does a "book report." "I don't really know what constitutes a book report - isn't a review supposed to be a report on a book, aiming to tell others how it is and what we think of it? Anyway, thanks for stopping by!
Rabeea wrote: "have tried reading it twice but I always end up losing interest and picking up another book off my reading list. I have a huge, ever sprawling reading list that I need to be done with before my vacations end. Do you think I should resume reading it (this time till the end) or should I just let it be? "I think you won't miss anything by not reading this book, Rabea - I'm sure that sooner or later it will be adapted into a major blockbuster film, so you'll have the chance to experience the story then. No need to force yourself into reading something that you don't enjoy.
Thanks for responding to all the comments! I appreciate the discussion.
