benedettal's reviews
395 reviews

I didn’t love this play, but it’s an interesting theme, that of a reasonable misanthrope who’s been betrayed by all his friends.

I continue not to really enjoy the Shakespeare plays set in ancient Greece, he’s much better with adapting real (Roman) history. I know this is now considered a problem play, which by nature is hardly ever as powerful or entertaining to me than a proper tragedy or comedy, though I have to say this read to me like a tragedy. 

The overarching theme is good, but the execution - in terms of plot, not writing - is not strong, didn’t feel particularly interesting. Feel for Timon though, he didn’t do anything wrong. 

Just finished this, but so many thoughts! This book is an intimate exploration of mental illness in a way I hadn’t been exposed to before, and while it was a step out of my comfort zone, I found it very touching and thought-provoking.

The protagonist, Imogen, is dealing with ocd, anxiety disorder and depression, living away from her family and boyfriend for college, overall trying to stay afloat. The descriptions of her days and routines, as well as her dealing with various emergencies, are so fascinating. Though I can’t entirely relate, it’s so easy to empathise and see where she’s coming from. This deep insight into her psyche really explains her behaviour, I don’t know how to say it but even the description of a panic attack feels so real. 

Then things take a turn for the worse and we’re pulled in a downward spiral, trying to figure things out with her. Now, if anything, this book made me feel thankful that I’m okay, that I know I have a plan, that I have a solid support system that caters to my needs. On the contrary, the way Imogen is thrusted from one hard place to the next felt just suffocating (which is a good thing because that was the goal). It was very reminiscent of Tess of the d’Urbervilles, only I actually saw where every character was coming from with their actions.

Crazy to say, but I totally understood the reasoning of the boyfriend. Not justifying it at all, just saying the reaction to everything was entirely realistic (sadly).

When he first finds out about the pregnancy, his reaction is wrong for the situation, because he’s aware of his guilt and even more importantly he knows Imogen needs him, but he’s also doing the only thing he can do, as a rough, uneducated man. Part of me can’t totally fault him either, just because I don’t have a pro-life stance, and I thought there could have been another interesting way of developing this story, had he not turned out to be a rapist.

But that aside, I thought his entire arc was devastating but so gripping, as we realise through Imogen’s eyes how she, like many other vulnerable women, has been taken advantage of.

Same thing with her parents. It’s so heartbreaking to me that she lacks the support system she needs, and that they are so misguided in their actions.

If my parents knew I was that mentally ill and still prioritised the child of a rapist, I would end things.

But one thing I could relate to was this idea of the internalised pressure “good children” face. I think one of the strengths of this novel was leaving things unsaid, letting the reader just reflect and feel. Reflect upon mental illness, how one’s surroundings affect them, support systems, and also how to communicate with others how one feels in order to get help and be understood.

This felt like a very personal book, written as a way to connect with the world almost. I don’t read many books like this, so it felt very raw and candid, while super beautifully written. Not for the faint hearted by I could hardly put it down.

I mean, I get it, but it’s way too long and tedious. The stories end up feeling repetitive, even though they may not really be so, due to how bleak they all necessarily are. I know that’s the point, it’s a work of fiction but might as well be journalism with the intent of highlighting the struggles of Russian society in the countryside, and that falls flat to me in this day and age. I think the main issue is a me problem, I don’t typically like short stories collections much. But beyond that, the length made it extra unbearable. Bit of a shame, but alas.

I mean, I didn’t feel particularly passionate about this one. Maybe it was the weird incest trope - not that I’m judging it by modern standards, but it was still unlikeable.  I never really enjoyed the main character himself, or bought the love story. 
But, the plot itself is undeniable rich and intriguing. Authors inspired by this book, like Tolstoy, built on it to the point of reaching perfection, but I can see how this is an inspiring epic that would be held in high regard by contemporaries and successive generations.
I also appreciated how it was purposefully scandalous and tongue in cheek. It kinda reminded me of three musketeers, but even less politically correct. 
So overall, this is not going to be a favourite of mine but I’m glad I’ve read it and I can see its merits.

I have to say I didn’t particularly love this book, even though I don’t have anything bad to say about it either. Foucault’s Pendulum is my first Eco novel, and all I knew about it going in was that it could be called dark academia to a certain extent (which I can confirm). It mostly deals with real conspiracy theories and secret societies related to the knights templar. On paper, this was interesting enough to me. Execution wise, more than a novel it felt like an encyclopaedia of historical and para-historical events that have enormous yet largely hidden historical significance. I certainly learned a lot about movements related to the templars and the rosicrucians,  for example, among other esoteric and hermetic philosophies. I won’t lie and say that half the time I felt like this was just a smarter version of the Da Vinci Code, which absolutely ripped off this novel, although of course many of these legends are pretty much in the public domain. I guess I kept questioning what was real and what was fiction. I think largely the work that the fictional characters do before delving into their own plan, reconstructs historical thrusts or very highly regarded believes, that mostly belong to the realm of the occult. Very fascinating indeed. But the clever thing, I guess, is that by making the characters go totally off script, with a plausible but nevertheless made up plan, Eco swiftly turns on his reader and calls everyone who gave credence to these things stupid (or diabolical). 

Still, I guess for however clever and informative it was, the book never drew me to its characters much. I get what they represent, each of their struggles and their personal development, but I guess I wasn’t really wild about any of it. I also think I would have appreciated it more if I had already known about the templars, at least more extensively. 

This one is kinda hard to review because first of all I don’t know how to summarise it, and secondly, it’s themes are so multilayered and broad, it would take an essay to even begin to break them down. Generally, I think this is a wonderful example of magical realism ante litteram, using the fantastical elements to move a strong societal critique about the Soviet Union, in particular its moral decadence and issues related to censorship, combined with being a writer under these stringent conditions. It works best within the historical context, which is pretty easy to understand even if you’re not an expert on Soviet history. It also ties in with classic themes related to modernism, in particular the struggles of the artist. 

What I personally found most amusing was how it interpolates and effectively updates Goethe’s Faust, with the Sabbath scene in particular being masterfully written here, truly unforgettable. Also kudos for giving agency to Margarita, the modern Gretchen. All the main characters are truly amazing. The titular duo of course, and the devil’s retinue are both amusing and charming, while presenting very thought provoking situations to the reader. I loved how some of the things the demons put unfortunate people through were also real life punishments operated by the Soviets, I mean the satire is so on point.

The whole subplot about the Pilatus story is of course inspired. Such a nuanced representation of good and evil, such an interesting play on the gospel, such a heart wrenching metaphor for censorship itself- the fact that the outlook presented never elevates Jesus to the position of higher power, and that’s still worth censoring in the USSR. Also, how does one even come up with all that?

Other stray points is that I love how this gloriously continues the literary tradition of making the devil/satan (or whatever) the most delightful, entertaining, memorable character in a book, started by Paradise Lost. You love to see it. And it’s just very funny, which I love. I want the witch cream so bad, please let me host the party and greet the damned souls pleeeease

This was a very entertaining read, i have to say i was hooked from the very first pages. Dead Souls is a wonderful absurdist satire of Russian decadence and society by the great (Ukranian) Gogol, whose keen eye and sharp pen draw the most clever criticism of that same society I’ve read so far amongst his contemporary (I seem to remember he was named in my previous read Uncle Vanya and influenced The Double). 

The narrator’s voice reminded me of that Thackeray, whom I love, and perfectly framed the sketches of the progressively more bizzarre characters that we encounter throughout the novel. Describing the greed, uselessness, arrogance, even poverty typical of the Russian land owners, he skilfully exposes the rot of the system without being preachy or boring. His masterpiece, however, is our protagonist Chichikov, who starts out as a mystery when he first proposes to buy dead souls, only to be exposed as a fraudster by mid-book. It’s actually funny, but also so sad. Such a great way to expose serfdom for the inhumane thing it was. And also such a perfect anticlimax, to find out that this whole thing is just a get rich quick scheme.

The only thing holding back the book is that it’s a bit monotone, partially due to the fact that it’s unfinished. Not that it’s impossible to guess where things would have ended up, but the whole tour of the Russian province from household to household pretty much goes nowhere, on purpose, but still. Even at the point in which serving justice is discussed, it doesn’t seem to me like Gogol would make a great scene of it and punish his protagonist, his point was just to ridicule him. So yeah, overall this is a good read, quite thought provoking, but while I wouldn’t call it boring at any point, it feels a little repetitive. 

I’m a bit torn on this one. The writing is superb, there are some really powerful dialogues and monologues, but the story itself, with its questionable resolution, left a bit to be desired.

Uncle Vanya read like a story about societal class first, pathological dissatisfaction second, and various intrigues third. Can already tell you I didn’t particularly care for the latter, if not when useful to the other two themes. 

Uncle Vanya is rightfully upset with his perceived waste of a lifetime, missing out on the girl who later marries his brother in law, staying in the countryside working hard for the benefit of his city relatives. Ultimately, his brother in law’s proposal to sell the country house becomes the last straw and he gives in to all his repressed feelings. Nevertheless, the ending is powerful in and of itself. The buildup leads to a staggering deescalation, where everyone reconciles, plans are scrapped, and Vanya’s life goes back to normal. But what’s that good for? Going back to the same dissatisfaction? 

Sonya is also an interesting character, her destiny very much following the same dissatisfactory trajectory as her uncle and the country doctor, who refuses her advances as he considers his time passed (even though he’s obsessed with Yelena, which is not a good look at all, but anyway). The way that the cycle resumes at the end of the play is especially heartbreaking, despite everyone being safe and sound. 

Yelena is a difficult character for me to comprehend, she seems to be just a critique of city folks, especially the helpless and aimless ones who simply marry to elevate their position. But then again, who can blame a woman for accepting a similar arrangement. 

Overall, all the characters have a tragic air about them. That doesn’t excuse their actions, but it makes them sympathetic, and most importantly it move a poignant critique to society. I liked the complexities of the play, although I didn’t feel much of a connection on an emotional level. Still pretty good.

Fight Club is a 1999 American film directed by David Fincher, and starring Brad Pitt, Edward Nortonand Helena Bonham Carter. It is based on the 1996 novel by Chuck Palahniuk. Norton plays the unnamed narrator, who is discontented with his white-collar job. He forms a "fight club" with soap salesman Tyler Durden (Pitt), and becomes embroiled in a relationship with an impoverished but beguilingly attractive woman, Marla Singer (Bonham Carter).

Just kidding. Man I’m so gutted I didn’t vibe with this one. I know that it’s obviously the other way around, but this novel felt very Kafkaesque, and not in a good way unfortunately. The general plot of the double, or doppelgänger, makes little sense throughout, while also giving up its shtick immediately upon the introduction of the second Golyadkin. Now, I’m not saying that it should be a Fight Club situation with a huge twist at the end. But I still thought that the plot was very confusing. This fact was not helped by the writing; I will admit the translation I used very clearly didn’t hurt, as it used a lot of antiquated terms and syntax. But still, I recognised Dostoevsky’s very own stress of certain phrases, constant repetition of names, and nerve wracking introspection, which simply didn’t work in this case. It’s a chaotic and anxiety inducing narrative, but I found it hard to in any way relate to the protagonist, besides understanding his awkwardness and desire to be someone altogether different. His life is too shapeless, nothing makes sense. I get that this might be a metaphor for feeling alienated from society, or possibly a depiction of schizofrenia, but still, my point is that it didn’t make for a pleasant read. The other characters are also pointless and hardly play a part in the story. Again, I get that that’s a feature, not a bug, but it just wasn’t for me. Much less polished than both earlier (white nights) and later (crime and punishment) works. So bloated for such a short book. Disappointing.

Yeah so I didn’t really like this. I was aware that Tolstoy’s novels and his other works were pretty much worlds apart, but wasn’t expecting this.

The plot revolves around a man who killed his wife and recalls how he got to that point. He’s basically trying to argue that love can’t last, and eventually two will hate each other and it’ll possibly end up in murder. His story, however, exposes a lot of flaws in his thinking. For one, he immediately outs his deranged jealousy, which he thinks is normal but I don’t think anybody (incl Tolstoy) would agree. Anything from her being checked by doctors to not being allowed to breastfeed her child is a cause of tension. 

Of course, it all culminates when cheating is suspected. I don’t know if Tolstoy wanted us to sympathise with this guy, I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt because I know his moral compass from his other writings. The cheating episode is left very ambiguous. There is a chance that something was going on, maybe it was one sided on the part of the musician, but I think our very unreliable narrator didn’t overall manage to convince anyone of his wife’s guilt, he ultimately presents no evidence, which is damning in and of itself. 

Still, I feel like he’s presented with a degree of humanity, he’s allowed to tell his story, because it exposes the ugliness of society and relative expectations about love and marriage. Men’s jealousy is the biggest culprit here, rather than a woman’s infidelity or any other fault. Everything she does sparks hatred from her husband, even the most ridiculous situation. I don’t know if that’s also saying something about love in general, but I don’t think so. More so that some people are incapable of it due to their own issues.

Anyway, I still didn’t like it because it was a bit too strong. Just a miserable story really, and with it being so short, I felt the payoff was a bit lacking. Just not my cup of tea.