Now it's February and I've read three books so far: Dracula by Bram Stoker, Mostly Harmless by Douglas Adams and Utopia by Thomas More.
More's Utopia was really very interesting. The book was first published in 1516 and so I was amazed and astounded by how progressive it was. The novel discusses the fictional country of Utopia, a place where there is no poverty or war or crime. It is, as the title suggests, a utopia. The novel itself almost reads like a manual, a 'how to' guide to creating such a place.
There were many concepts within the book that greatly impressed me, considering that it was written in the 16th century. This included: a welfare state with free hospitals, euthanasia permitted by the state, the fact that divorce is allowed and the tolerance of other people's religion. On the other hand, the Utopians seemed like quite limited people without enough free will (in my opinion) as their day to day lives are strictly regimented and structured. As a whole I found the experience of reading Utopia rather eye opening and compelling (even though it doesn't read like a traditional novel). So if you're up for something that will make you think and question the society we currently live in, then I suggest you give it a read.
Mostly Harmless is the last official book in Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. I say 'official' because Eoin Colfer (the amazing author of Artemis Fowl) wrote a sixth book after Adam's death to round off the series. So the sixth book, titled And Another Thing, is part of the Hitchhiker's series but is not actually written by the guy who wrote the rest of the series in the first place. It, like the nature of this delightful collection of books, is all very confusing. Mostly Harmless, like the books that came before it, is absolutely hilarious! It's very fast paced (took me about a day to finish reading it) with a plot that is a random as it is funny. Even though I did prefer the first book in the series (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), Mostly Harmless was incredibly entertaining.
Dracula was also a pleasant surprise. It started off very slowly because nothing much really happens at the beginning. But then it got increasingly better. The whole story is told in the form of diary entries and letters which I thought was a rather interesting literary technique. This definitely helped to pick up the pace of the novel because different characters are able to tell their side of the story in short bursts, and so it begins to flow more nicely. I was mostly surprised by the plot itself. I had heard a lot about the story of Dracula before reading the novel (I mean he is probably the most famous vampire in the world, even more so then that bloody Edward Cullen!) and so I assumed that it would be quite a terrifying read. But it wasn't really. I guess that at the time it was written (1897) readers would have been frightened by the idea of a blood sucking shape shifter, but I wasn't so much. I was more fascinated by the historical significance of the novel. Two of the most interesting concepts for me was the whole vampire legend itself (Stoker pretty much defined the idea of the 'vampire' that we know and love today), and the role that women played within the novel. One of the main characters, Mina Murray, is not what I would call a typical Victorian woman. She is very clever and resourceful and she has a crucial role in helping to track down and kill Count Dracula. Even though she is often left at home whilst the men do all the 'dirty' work, I still regard her as a progressive character and a strong women, considering that the novel was written in 1897.
However, after all that I did find the ending slightly disappointing as it was rather anti-climactic, thus, a little bit of a let down. Overall, I did really enjoy the book but I don't think I'll be reading it again any time soon.
I hope you didn't find this post too long :) and that it gives you a little bit of an insight to my eclectic reading tastes.
No comments:
Post a Comment