andrewspink's reviews
532 reviews

This is a collection of essays about how Haruki Murakami became an author and how he developed into a better author. It is interesting to read, especially how he describes about the characters having minds of their own. What is less interesting is where he goes on and on about why he didn't win important literary prizes and how he didn't mind really. 

This interesting and challenging book raises more questions than it answers. But that's OK because in the Palestinian - Israeli conflict there are not really any answers. She seeks a way forward through nuance, which clearly doesn't go down well with either side of the conflict. 
Like many Jews, she is opposed to Netanyahu and she also clearly condemns the kidnappings by Hamas. She quotes Desmond Tutu, 'if you are neutral in an unjust situation, you choose the side of the oppressor', but concludes that that is not applicable in that situation. Israel has a right to exist and also the people in Gaza have a right to life. In the end, she does clearly come down on the side of the two-state solution, and in that sense she is less nuanced than she claims.  
The book is sensible and thought-provoking, but I fear that it is going to be mostly preaching to the choir.

Normally I am not so keen on magic realism, I find the magical elements irritating and find it had to suspend belief.  However, this book was different.  In that sense, it was more like science fiction, where it was all so bizarre that you could let yourself be carried along by the story. 
I read the excellent (Dutch) translation by Jacques Westerhoven, which was also full of all sorts of helpful and useful footnotes.
It was indeed a gripping narrative.  The conversations with cats was what sold it to me and indeed that did not disappoint.
The book was originally written in 2002 and it is clearly before #MeToo. The female characters are less well developed and essentiall  there to help the men. The rape/incest scene is particularly disturbing because the man is presented as being unable to help himself and that that ik ok then. You would hope that the author would not have written it like that these days.
This was the first book from Haruki Marakami that I had read. Despite its shortcomings, I will definitely be reading more by him. 

I had never read anything by J.M. Coetzee and he was recommended to me, so when I saw this second-hand, I picked it up. Foe is a retelling of Robinson Crusoe (Defoe means 'the foe') but from the perspective of a woman castaway who joins them on the island (who was not in the original). The original Robinson Crusoe is a slave trader (he was shipwrecked whilst on his way to Africa to buy slaves) and Foe is very much a commentary on that, with Friday's tongue cut out, making him unable to tell his story. 
Foe is a commentary on a book written in 1719 (and set 50 years previously). What about our perspective looking back on a book written in 1989 (35 years ago)? The woman is given a voice, but she is not really presented as Crusoe's equal (but maybe he thought that would be unrealistic)? The evil of slavery is clear, and all the stuff about cannibalism from the original exposed as a myth, but still Friday has dull eyes and sits in a corner (or is that meant to be a result of being enslaved)? It is difficult to know what to make of it, but that of course is good, it encourages the reader to think, and that is of course rather the point of literature. 
Whilst reading this book, I was reminded of James by Percival Everett (https://app.thestorygraph.com/reviews/ac84db99-5bec-4a8d-b459-c028367ebcc0) in which the story of Huckelberry Finn is retold from the perspective of Jim, the runaway slave. Perhaps if Coetzee was retelling Robinson Crusoe today, he would take the perspective of Friday. 

I was lucky enough to get a personally signed copy of this book as part of the NS Publieksprijs campaign, and it went on to win the competition. I must admit that I was a bit puzzled by that.  It was ok, but not that wonderful imho. Especially in the begining, I found it a bit of a struggle, but once I got about a third into it, it went better.
There were some nice aspects. The vasculum ('botaniseertrommel') and herbarium was of interest to me as a botanist. I am still wondering what 'ruivelaag-gras' is; I cannot find that anywhere on internet.  
I was not so impressed by the small sections in the book where he sprung forward to the current time. It was a nice idea, but to be honest, random conversations with strangers in the park was not that interesting to read about.
The other problem that I had is that I am always sceptical of memoirs and autobiographies. In this case, he is at least honest enough to give a number of big hints that he is a potentially unreliable narrator (what do you know about when you were nine?). Nevertheless, it is still the case that we have no idea what he leaves out or alters so that he comes over better (consciously or not). 
I would have preferred it if Rob van Essen had won.

The protagonist of this book is a very negative character. She uses people, lives by deceit. has no respect, supports dispicable causes and has no conscience. She is probably a bit of a psychopath. Normall,y I don't like books like that. However, in this case, I would make an exception. I would not say that I felt sympathy or empathy for her, but certainly understanding.
The book is nicely written. There is extensive use of metaphores and similies, some quite imaginative. I guess that is what got it onto the Booker shortlist. A high road 'like the spine of an enourmous animal'. Slate tiles ' glistening like fish scales in the sunlight'. There were also some phraes worth thinking about. 'Having a good accent is nothing. It is a consolation prize for people who are not fluent'.  That sounds attractive (I have a bad accent in Dutch, but I'm fluent), but is is true? ' Europe is trucking and pallets and nuclear power'. Again, thought-provoking. 
But what to make of all the stuff about Neaderthals? How much of that is factual, or at least what scientists currently believe? How does it relate to the book. I didn't really get it. What was I missing?
The book succedes as a page-turning thriller. You definately want to know what will happen next, and you will keep turning pages until you find out.

What an amazing book! For a start, this is Dutch writer writing in English, but also in a very Dutch way (in a good sense). And then the astonishing plot. Just when you think you know what it is all about, everything is turned on its head and you discover that the story is actually very different that you thought it was.  
Typically Dutch, there is far too much sex. It is functional and it exceptionally well written. But still.
Something that was very well done was that in the dialogues, especially in the beginning, the speakers interrupt each other resulting in unfinished sentences, where it is nevertheless clear what is meant. That is how real dialogue between people goes, and van der Wouden showed some exceptional skill in getting that just right. She did use some odd punctuation, for instance with some quotes in italics for no apparent reason. Despite English not being her first language, it was impeccable, I only spotted one 'mistake' (she wrote finish school instead of finishing school). Considering the level of my Dutch, after decades living here, that is very impressive.
It clearly deserved its place on the Booker shortlist. 

I liked the way that the author wove the different stories together. That was very well done, and the order in which they were presented was also effective. However, perhaps because of that, a large part of the ending of the story (

I mean that the wife was the mathematical genius behind the business success of the husband

) was very predictable. I also enjoyed the frame that the book put around the writing process and its exploration of unreliable narrators. 
I have no interest in high finance and expected that to be a disadvantage of the book, but that was thankfully not the case and the book was easy to read. I read it all on one day, in the course of a long train journey. 

I was hoping for more about the swallows, so was a little disappointed. 
The book is mostly a travel storey, and as such it is ok, though as is typical of the genre, it remains an outsider's view, lacking in real insights.
At the end the author seems to have something of a mental breakdown.  It is very brave of him to reveal that so openly in this book, but perhaps that would have been better off in a separate book since it was so quickly described.  The reader is left wondering what on earth is going on. Perhaps that was on purpose, but it was a little dissatisfying.

A very interesting book, which I learnt a lot from. I had no idea that rosewood was so important.  More to the point, I did not realise how poorly implemented bans on trade in endangered can lead to counterproductive effects (scarcity can make the resource more valuable and fines can be just seen as taxation). The Chinese understanding of conservation (harmony between species, which can include production) was also something new for me, which I'm still getting my head around. The concept of an 'inverted commons' where resources belong to the entire globe, not the people who rely on them most, was also thought-provoking.