Alina’s Comments (group member since Feb 12, 2013)
Showing 1-3 of 3
Скажу честно, что читала это произведение долго, и хотя с первого взгляда кажется, что читается оно легко, я несколько раз теряла нить повествования, так как роман сложно построен и часто перебивается эпизодами, которые осложняют понятие общей картины.В школьной программе роман Чернышевского отсутствовал, хотя к его литературной критике по другим произведениям прибегали часто.
Вопрошает автор, как мне кажется, о необходимости революции и об осуществлении таковой прогрессивной частью общества. Но его идеи о будущем строе сначала слегка, потом чересчур утопичны. Вера Павловна рассматривается как образ новой женщины, которая старается бороться за свободу личности и независимость, которые она достигает. Но в произведении переплетено столько идей и взглядов на строение общества, что идеальный строй (каким его видит автор) близок к утопичному социализму, и его призыв к поиску пути некоторого освобождения угнетенных слоев(и прослеживающаяся надежда и предчувствие революции).
I found this book to be an extremely easy-read. I suppose, that all books by Jojo Moyes are as such, as i picked one promotional collected stories book and a couple of chapters The Girl you left behind were there.(it's a mystery,but every time you suggest a book, it inconceivably appears in my surroundings).I see where you're coming from with the suggestion, that it's mainstream fiction, but I'm lost when it comes to definition of quality. Don't get me wrong, it's a decent book, but it lacks something, which i couldn't quite put my finger on. It's fast-paced,no-nonsense low-brow chick lit, but there is an elusive feeling, that you read fiction, not exactly plausible plot.
Yet, some of the characters seem feasible (Mr. Traynor, whose reasoning and decisions i managed to comprehend), but the rest of them were not weak, but overpoweringly fabricated. I don't know why, but i caught myself wondering, whether i would guess the ending and i did, as it was so easy to crack the code the author provided).
Again,regarding the coping with grave topic bit-the problem was outlined,but i saw no further development. It's like a mantra Louisa was repeating,that she should do her best and get him out of his misery. And yet, neither was there a winning formula, nor the sense of upcoming denouement.
I find this mixture of "Let's touch upon grave matter and then dilute with fun whimsical staff" rather frustrating, as it makes me think,that the author sells out.
Now, moving on to the questions
1) I still can't decipher the meaning,tbh. It's either the egoistic plea on the behalf of Will, or the altruistic sacrifice by Louisa. Might be both of them mixed.
2) I suppose, that the insight given from the point of view of supporting characters was necessary, but their thoughts seemed so distant and somehow contrived, as if they were thoughts Louisa prescribed them in her diary.
3) Well, i would go that far to label her cruel and heartless,as she had her own demons to cope with.Mrs Traynor is portrayed as a strong powerful woman,but vulnerable at the same time. Her decisions are firm and brutal, but they are never impulsive or hasty. At the end of the day,Will was a grown-up, capable of deciding which turn his life should make.
4)Actually, every character had their own function, just as people do in everyday life. There is always a villain, a stubborn person or selfish one. They accompanied the story and shaped the edges, filled the gaps and made the story digestible. We couldn't really judge them,as we don't know how we would act if in their shoes.
5)My view of euthanasia is a straightforward one-if the person is in a right mind and capable of sane evaluation of his condition, then why shouldn't they be allowed to take destiny in their own hands?
I don't understand, when opponents of this concept ardently make a stand for basically tormenting the person rather than freeing them from the plight. Isn't it unethical, when you have stripped a person of any choice?
Sorry,if it came across rather harsh,as I didn't wish to slate the book.It's just that it didn't strike a chord as something,which gives sufficient food for thought.Somewhere along the lines there is a serious context,but it's lost in between attempts to satisfy a choosy reader.
1.Probably it's just me,but this book is miles away from actually expressing any beliefs. Yes,the boy is torn between choosing a right one for his outlook and attitudes,but it he really sounding the ground for any of them?I mean,there is a scene where he is confronted by three advocates of certain religious schools,but then the story is left crumpled and this plot line remains unattended.
2. Well, i suppose,that he is not looking for something in particular,it's just that the sheer contradiction three advisers present leaves him overwhelmed. All religions have different background and reducing them all to the same level seems like a futile endeavor, because as tastes differ,each religion has a unique core,not only spiritual base,but cultural premises.By treating them all alike,we are depriving people from heritage they may obtain and beliefs they may adopt. There is always something common between everything in our lives,isn't there?it might be a fleeting sense or a sound evidence,but our being encounters so many cases of irrational similarities,that people began believing in the ubiquitous nature of any religious studies. However,each to their own,and exactly the choice the religion provides facilitates the moral rumblings we partake.Faith may not be consolidated by any official religion,but one might believe in something without attaching themselves to any spiritual brach.Beliefs are more fundamental,they are recognized as so by the Church,so hold more power in regards to moral conundrum.
3.Good grief,this idea didn't cross my mind in the least,while i was reading the book.Pi's voyage is a story of survival,stoical resistance to hardships of nature,but religion doesn't come into this till probably the final chapters.It may just be possible,that i misconstruct the essence of the plot.
4.I suppose,that physical pain may bring a certain relief,because it distracts from emotional devastation.In this case,he might have felt rather elated,as something unusual and out of order was happening-afterwards he only faced day-to-day routine.A change brings a sense of excitement to the soul,even if it challenges a body.
5.There is no way understanding why he had said these things,because the every situation calls for the reaction,and this one was not an exception. Possibly,he might have understood, that this was it,the end of the so-called journey,when the last hope is abandoned and the future is nowhere to see on the horizon.
6.Yes, the story is not an account of real life,but,nonetheless, it's so moving and recounted in such a way,that the reader doesn't need to believe,the story unfolds naturally enough to make you to forget about such subtleties.I wouldn't go so far to say,that Pi is a incredibly convincing storyteller, because sometimes the story widely digresses,and then comes back to particular sub-plots,but generally,he can be called a gifted narrator,because he doesn't let you to lose the thread of the story once and for all.To be honest,i might as well own up to suspecting that another context is kept behind the bars of imagination and that for the sake of touching and philosophical finale the accompanying story would appear.Not that it makes the story worse,just a bit pretentious.
7.I though the book was rather well-written,the plot wandered a lot,but just about managed to keep the readers afloat(literally).The author did a great job and without a doubt all the rewards the book has gained were truly deserved.However,with hindsight,and after watching the movie,i disclosed another concept,which i'm not entirely comfortable with.The story seems to entail and implicit a moral,but putting your finger on it might prove to be impossible,because it' so ingrained into the narration.Clearly,there's something behind it,but it stays invisible.But it just be me.(and my narrow-mindedness).
