Book #1: Watchmen

I don’t know where to start with Watchmen. I don’t know what part of the story to start with or which characters to discuss first or which themes to really delve into because there is so much that can be talked about.

It would be easiest, I guess, to start at the beginning so start there I shall. But don’t expect any real chronology to follow. Like I said, there is so much going on, on various levels, that “beginning to end” doesn’t work.

Watchmen opens with the murder of the Comedian, one of the masked adventurers who was part of the Watchmen. Set in New York in 1985, in an alternate reality that has Richard Nixon still in the White House, these masked adventurers have been outlawed since 1977. This brings up two elements in the story that I really liked: these people were not so much superheroes as masked adventurers or costumed adventurers (they refer to themselves as such) and that, at one point in time, these adventurers were a valid and acceptable part of society. Okay, so readers don’t find this out right at the beginning but it’s important because it sets it up that this isn’t a story about Spiderman and Wonder Woman.

But back to the beginning. The Comedian is murdered (don’t worry, this is not a spoiler) and this sets the story in motion. Who killed him? Why? Is someone out to get the “masks”? Despite being admired in the past, these masked men and women have now become feared and reviled and viewed as dangerous vigilantes. It is Rorschach who discovers the murder of the Comedian and is determined to solve it. In doing this, he must visit friend and foe from the adventuring days. The story then moves between past and present, introducing the reader to the characters, explaining who they are and why they became adventurers and how the dealt with being outlawed. We meet Sally Jupiter (Silk Spectre) and her daughter Laurie (Silk Spectre II), Night Owl I and Night Owl II, Ozymandias, Dr. Manhattan and Rorschach, as well as many others. Through their interaction in the past and present, we begin to see who the Comedian was, how he lived and who he had become.

As we learn about the characters, it becomes obvious there is no “With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility” motto driving them. They are flawed. They are weak. They are selfish. They make mistakes. But all are shaped by the world around them; forget radioactive spiders or exploding planets, these are real people.

Of course, like every good fantasy story, there are fantastical elements (the least of which is Nixon as President) and this contrasts starkly against the grim real world. And, being set in 1985, this grim reality is right in the middle of the Cold War and Russia is no friend. From this, fact and fantasy mix to create a world of uncertainty, fear, disillusion and despair.

And then the climax comes in all its catastrophic glory. This is the part of the story that affected me the most. I didn’t know what to think of it at first and I’m still thinking about it. But it is how the story had to end. The entire book exists on many levels and every character and storyline, no matter how small, is multi-layered. The ending had to be the same, had to make the reader think, had to present many sides in a single event. This is a testament to the writing ability of Alan Moore, not only his imagination but his ability to execute it so well. The book is illustrated by Dave Gibbons, but the script Gibbons had to work from (by Moore) outlined in great detail what each scene looked like. And there is so much detail in each scene, any reader would be doing a disservice by not paying close attention to the smaller, finer elements.

Another interesting part is a secondary story that runs through the book, a pirate story being read by a kid who hangs out at the newsstand. This story stands on its own but also works with the events that are happening which makes for a wonderful and terrifying juxtaposition. I also find this incredibly clever and perfectly executed.

I just realized I didn’t really tell much about what happens in the book, just gave a rather vague overview of the framing elements. But to tell what happens would deprive you the joy of reading it for yourself. A blurb from Time can be found here and see the Wikipedia entry here. Really though, just go read it.

I had mentioned before that my next book would be White Noise by Don Delillo. Change of plans. I've opted instead to next read The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen. This could take a bit of time though, as the book comes in at over 700 pages. But it's on the list and I've gotta get going on this. So The Corrections, here I come!

One down, 99 to go

I finished Watchmen. And...wow. That's all I've got right now. I will post a full review next week, once I get through Thanksgiving. In the interim I will be starting book the second this weekend, White Noise by Don Delillo.

One way I know a book has really hit me is if I can't stop thinking about it after I've finished. Especially if I can't form an opinion on it right away. After only a few pages I knew I would like Watchmen and I know that I liked the book. What I'm still thinking about is what I didn't like...and if I really didn't like certain aspects or if I just need to view the book from different perspectives to properly form my opinion. And I will keep thinking about it this weekend and I likely won't know what I really thought of the book until I write my review. And, overall, THAT makes this an excellent book.

Reading pictures

Watchmen is only the second graphic novel I have read. The first, From Hell, which also happens to be by Alan Moore, was fantastic and a great read. It was also in black and white.

This is important because I've discovered something interesting in the way I'm reading Watchmen. When I read a book that is text only, the words are there to describe but it's up to me to visualize who and what is in the book. When I watch a movie, the image is there but so are the words; I just have to keep up with what is happening and make it all make sense in my head. But when I'm reading Watchmen, I've got the words telling me what's happening (the text is not all in the form of dialogue) and I've got the images showing me what's happening. But I also have the luxury of being able to study each frame, to pick up on the little things that I might miss in, say, a movie when the images are moving.

I find it interesting to have so many senses engaged but to be able to indulge those sense to really get a better understanding of the book and the story. I also find it different reading a graphic novel in colour versus one in black and white. Illustrating From Hell in black and white made sense, no doubt, but having the colours in Watchmen adds a different emphasis, particularly in the frames with lotsa blood. It will be great to see the movie and see how that adds to the story because it will be showing how the characters move and interact with each other and with their surroundings.

I'm about halfway through now and I'm definitely into this book.

It has begun

I started Watchmen last night - so far so good.

I’ve decided that I’m not going to apply any kind of rigid structure to this blog. As I read, I’ll write about the book I’m reading and the author and I’ll make every effort to post some thoughts as I make my way through each book, but I’m not going into in-depth analysis or writing detailed chapter summaries or anything like that. I do want to post regularly though because, if I don’t, this almost seems pointless. I also want to write a review after each book and compare my thoughts with Time’s. But really, this is about the reading and the more time I spend posting, the less time I spend reading and that’s just silly.

One thing I can comment on now is my reading style. It seems no matter what kind of book I read or how much I want to read it, it always takes about the first 1/3 of the book for me to really be drawn in and to want to continue to read it. This is holding true for Watchmen too. I have complete faith that I will be sucked in and will spend many nights staying up far too late. As much as I try to pace myself, to learn to savour books more, it just doesn’t happen. And if I’m not enthralled in that first 1/3, I’m not likely to continue.

Unless, of course, I have to, which I do if I’m going to read all 100 books. I can tell you right now I am not looking forward to Catch-22 or The Catcher in the Rye. Sigh.

My next literary adventure

When I started this blog, I had real intentions of updating it regularly and writing about the books I was reading, authors I liked (and disliked), reviewing books and just writing in general about the world of books. But then a combination of laziness and stagnation overtook me and I stopped. I did spend some time coming up with ideas for posts and the different books and authors I could write about but then something else came to me…all because of Batman.

For many reasons, The Dark Knight was probably the most anticipated movie of summer in 2008. Among those reasons (likely lower on the list, but still significant) was the trailer for the movie Watchmen. I’d heard of the graphic novel before but didn’t know much about it or the movie…then the trailer blew me away. Honestly, watching the trailer, I didn’t care that I only knew a brief overview of the story. I could have known nothing and still would have wanted to see the movie. In ensuing conversations about Watchmen, I learned that it is the only graphic novel to make Time Magazine’s 100 Best Novels of All Time list. (I also learned that author Alan Moore has a big hate-on for Hollywood and adaptations of his work, but I’ll save that for another time.)

In recent years, graphic novels have been gaining more respect as a literary medium, possibly because successful movie adaptations are more readily referencing the source material. But to see a graphic novel on a best-of novel list intrigued me which meant, of course, that I had to know more about Time’s list.

So, here it is.

How did they arrive at this list? There are criteria: books must be novels, originally written in English and published after 1923 (the year Time began publishing). Simple enough, but these three basic rules cut out a lot of literary giants. Gone were the Brontes, Dickens and Austen; Dostoyevsky; Flaubert, Camus and Dumas; Cervantes; and the list goes on.

But there are a lot of great authors and books on the list. Many writers I’ve heard of, even if I’m not familiar with the chosen book. To start off, I’ve decided on my first three books. The inaugural book will be (in fact, must be) the book that spurred me into this project: Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons.

Book the second will be White Noise by Don DeLillo and the third read will be Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume.

(I feel I should also note that these three books were chosen as the first three because I also happen to already own them. Minor detail.)

There are books on the list I've read and liked; books I've read and hated; books I've always wanted to read and some I had hoped to never pick up again. There are authors I recognize and some I've never heard of. Of the authors I know, there are some surprises as to which book was chosen, while other choices are almost cliche.

So on Wednesday October 1 (after Criminal Minds and CSI:NY) I will crack the cover of Watchmen and begin my adventure in literature. Let’s see where it takes me.

This will be fun.

Revamp!

When I started this blog, I had big plans for it. I wanted to post book reviews, talk about authors I love and loathe, post lists of what I like and dislike, discuss book formats and genres and just generally bookishness.

And that hasn't really happened. Yet.

I've got plans for this blog, oh yes I do. They're coming, slowly but surely. But I will get this to where I want it, mostly because I love talking about books almost as much as I love books themselves.

A very Late review

Alright, so I finally finished Late Nights on Air by Elizabeth Hay. Giller Prize winner, don'tcha know. As this is the first Giller Prize-winning book I've read, I can't say conclusively that it deserved to win. What I can say is that I can understand why it would win. It is a fantastic book.

Set in Yellowknife in 1975, Late Nights focuses on a radio station and the various people who work there, as well as the surrounding community. Harry had a failed television career and has returned to what he knows best. Dido was discovered off the street and immediately enraptures Harry, but Dido loves Eddy. Gwen drove across the country to try her hand at something she has always loved and slowly blossoms. Eleanor keeps things running smoothly as the station secretary. Ralph also works at the station and adds a debonair, educated air to the book. Mrs. Dargabble makes for an interesting neighbour, as she has her own secrets. As the characters' lives intertwine, you feel like you are watching any small town simply be.

It did take me awhile to get through this book, mainly because I never felt rushed. Even though there were plenty of times I wanted to know what would happen, I never had that sense of urgency to finish it. I find this is mainly due to Hay's way of writing and of creating a story that is calm and peaceful and almost quiet in the way it engages the reader. (Does that last part even make sense? I don't even know, but it's how I feel. So there.) Perhaps that is the main reason I like the book - by creating a story and characters that are so calm, Hay made me feel like these could be real people, real lives, real situations. Given, parts of the canoe trip felt a little far-fetched, but I've never canoed any great distance, so what do I know? Still, all the characters were flawed in real ways and all struggled to find what was right. And there was no rush to reveal all about the characters either; they continued to develop well into the book and still had a few surprises even towards the end.

Hay also managed something that quite impresses me for a Canadian author: she was able to write about small-town/wilderness life without coming across as "man vs. nature in a BATTLE TO THE DEATH" kind of way. In fact, Yellowknife became another character, moving and changing with the seasons and with the characters as they moved and changed through their lives. And when four of them set off on their canoe trip through the Barrens, the wilderness never felt oppressive or monstrous; rather, it was painted as beautiful and perhaps misunderstood, as alive and thriving and finicky as any living thing.

I think the best books are the ones that seem to be a snapshot of those involved, a slice out of their lives. You know more came before - and you may learn some or even most of it - and you know more will come after - and much could be hinted at what this will be - but what you are given stands alone as a whole, but you can still imagine it between this beginning and this end. Late Nights on Air is just like this.

I read, therefore I am

I made an interesting discovery today: my voracious reading habits are actually useful. The current pick for my book club is The Plague by Albert Camus and, while reading it, I have been able to pick out instances of absurdism (as a literary device, not just as absurdity) as well as indirect references to George Orwell (who is listed as an influence for Camus in the Wikipedia entry).

Had I not been forced to read 1984 in Grade 12 or chose to study Edward Albee in one OAC English class, I would not be nearly as knowledgeable on absurdity or the Orwellian view of society as I am now. And - voila! - I now have an example of how this is helping me. Hurrah!

There. Now I feel so much better about my booknerdishness.

So proud!

Today on my lunch hour, I went into a bookstore and I purchased...nothing. Nada. Not one single, solitary book. I walked in, I looked around, I picked up books, I read descriptions, I perused the remainder table and then I walked away.

I. Am. So. Proud.

That's not to say I wasn't tempted. I contemplated a few books today:

Night by Elie Wiesel

The Night Watch by Sergei Lukyanenko

Invisible Prey by John Sanford

Our Gods Wear Spandex: Secret History of Comic Book Superheroes by Christopher Knowles (this was actually considered for my beau, not myself, but I would totally steal it from him and read it cover to cover)

I also discovered this book and what is one of my favourite covers in recent history. I would buy this book for the cover. Seriously. I have done that before. The fact that I am also interested in reading the book doesn't hurt either.

I purchased this book based primarily on its cover, but it's a Roald Dahl book, so was there really any worry about quality? It should also be noted that I HATE snakes. But Roald Dahl is worth it. That said, everyone should go buy this book now. NOW. Don't be strong like me. Cave to the pressure of the written word!! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!!!

Why hardcover is hard

I'm still slogging my way through Late Nights on Air and I don't know why, but this book just hasn't grabbed my attention the way I hoped it would. I can handle books that move a little slowly or that spend time developing characters and showing character interaction. In fact, I appreciate a well-written book that does this, and Late Nights is one of them. But it just isn't grabbing me.

Wait...scratch that "I don't know why" bit from the last paragraph...I have a pretty good idea why I'm not getting into this book as readily as most and it has nothing to do with how it's written; as petty as this might sound, it is the format of the book that is holding me back. My copy of Late Nights on Air is hardcover. Generally, I don't do hardcover. (For the record, the book was a Christmas gift from my mother and I did request the title, knowing if I received it, it would be in hardcover. So I guess I did bring this on myself.)

Don't get me wrong - I can appreciate the beauty of a hardcover book, complete with dust jacket. And with the various finishing techniques that are used on the jackets and covers, hardcover books are often very pretty to look at. One recent book of note is The Raw Shark Texts by Steven Hall, which has a sturdy cover with a die-cut shark and no dust jacket. Even though I have not yet bought this book, I may have to buy the hardcover version just because it's so damn cool.

Cool or not, I just find hardcovers awkward to read. I like to read in bed and holding up a hardcover is tedious and sometimes more effort that it's worth, particularly when I'm tired. But since I like to read before going to bed, I'm more likely to grab my latest issue of The Hockey News than Late Nights. And hardcover books can be heavier, meaning carrying them with me to read on transit or in a coffee shop is (literally) a bit of a pain.

My preferred format is trade paperback and I will often wait for books to be published in this format before buying them. Okay, trade paperbacks tend to be the same size as the hardcover version, but the spine is softer so it's easier to hold the book open and they are a bit lighter so it's easier for me to transport them and the covers (sans dust jacket, which I always remove anyways) can be just as neat as the hardcover predecessor.

But I've already got Late Nights on Air in hardcover and I've already begun reading it, so I will soldier on and finish. It just might take me a bit longer than I'd like.

The List #1 - Some of the worst

I'm in a list-y kind of mood, as noted in a post on my autre blog so I thought I'd carry on here.
Here I give you...

10 BOOKS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED
(In the order that they pop into my head)

10. Beautiful Losers by Leonard Cohen
9. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick
8. Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
7. The Revenge of Kali-Ra by K.K. Beck
6. Bleeding Hearts by Jack Harvey (who is really Ian Rankin)
5. Roughing It in the Bush by Susanna Moodie
4. That really bad book of poetry by Margaret Atwood I had to read in university.
3. Through Violet Eyes by Stephen Woodworth
2. Angels and Demons by Dan Brown
1. The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown

This list was much harder to make than I had originally anticipated. Funny how that is. I've read a fair amount of books and plenty of them have been not-so-great, but since this list is books I think should never have been published, that's a new level of badness. Although it will be equally as hard to put together a list of the best books, as it takes a certain kind of specialness to be considered "the best". I'll have to start on that list now and see where I end up...

Bad bad bad

I totally need to make another post here and I know that, but I've been...otherwise engaged lately. I won't lie - it's the Stanley Cup playoffs and that really is all-consuming for me sometimes. But also, I've been working on a review of jPod by Douglas Coupland and I've been having some trouble with it. I enjoy reading Coupland and I was really looking forward to reading jPod, especially since it had neat non-standard-text parts to it (I'll elaborate more in the review, of course). The problem is that I still can't decide if it lived up to the expectations I put on it. I know I liked it, but I'm just not sure how much.

While I figure that out, I am enjoying Late Nights on Air by Elizabeth Hay, which, of course, won the 2007 Giller prize. Maybe this will help distract me enough from jPod to get my thoughts together.

iPod, uPod, we all Pod for jPod! (A review)

If Douglas Coupland can make himself a character (as himself) in his book jPod, then I can declare myself an honorary jPodster.

jPod refers to a cluster of employees at a gaming design firm, in which all the employees have "J" names. The narrator, Ethan Jarlewski, leads us through the professional and personal worlds of the jPodsters, like any 30-something, borderline-slacker character in a Coupland novel. But if you've read Generation X or Microserfs, you'll have a pretty good idea of what these characters are like. So let's not dwell on that so much.

There are a few things Coupland does that I like and a couple that I really don't. To start with the stuff that didn't really do it for me, the first is that there is a character named Douglas Coupland in the book (as mentioned above). He is an author and he's not well thought of and does act like a bit of a dick. Having never met Mr. Coupland, I am left to wonder: is he really a dick? Or is this his chance to make himself a dick without actually having to be dickish? Or is he just taking his dickishness to new levels, exploring how those levels may or may not work out for him in real life? Why do I really care all that much? Of course it's a gimmick - this book is full of them - but I don't really care for it. To have just had a character in the book who is just an author, instead of Coupland, would not have had the same affect, I will say that, but I don't think I really would have missed good ol' Doug.

The other thing he does is not a gimmick, it's just plot, but I still don't like it. There is a storyline that takes a few people to China and stuff happens and Coupland shows up and yadda yadda yadda. Again, not really caring. Could've done without the sojourn to China, but what can you do?

But it's more fun to dwell on what I liked. Back to the gimmicks - since the jPodsters work as designers at a gaming company, they're tech-savvy and nerdy and almost too smart for their own good. (Okay, a little cliche, but that's how it goes.) At one point, Ethan challenges the podsters to write an eBay posting, selling themselves. We then get each of those postings from each person. And another podster, Mark, emails the first hundred thousand digits of pi, with one rogue number, and challenges the others to find said rogue. We are then treated to pages of numbers, which list the first hundred thousand digits of pi. While I could never find the rogue number, one of our podsters does find it, rather quickly too. And the gimmicks like this continue and I love them all.

Coupland also does a great job of developing the characters without overdoing the back story and without being boring. And there are some great back stories too, like why there is a character with the (legal) name John Doe.

Plus, someone builds a hug machine. Who doesn't love a hug machine?

In a way, it's kind of hard to talk about this book without giving too much away. While it has a clear plot and tells a story and interweaves many characters, it is almost like a snapshot of a moment in the lives of these characters and you really have to read it to truly understand and appreciate it. Yes, I know that's lame, but whatever. Just read it, okay?

A darkly dreamt review

Before Showtime came along and made it into the "hottest new show on television" (I'm sure someone said that), Dexter was the novel Darkly Dreaming Dexter, by Jeff Lindsay. (Side note: locate the version with the cover shown and check out the author photo. Worst. Photo. Ever.)

So what if you've seen the show? I'm still going to tell you about the book.

Dexter Morgan is a blood-spatter analyst in Miami, even though he hates blood and is also a serial killer who saves a drop of each victim's blood on a slide, even though he hates blood. (You do find out why he hates blood, but I won't spoil it for you.) Crime-solver by day, crime-maker by night. Simple enough, right? What keeps this book from being overly formulaic is who Dexter kills, how he rationalizes it and how he fits into society. Dexter only kills people who deserve it: murderers, child molesters and abusers that the police weren't able to catch. But he does it so well, no one in Miami realizes there a serial killer out there, disposing of these criminals.

But on to the how. Dexter perfected his art of killing through the careful guidance of his adoptive father, Harry. Early on, Harry discovered "what" Dexter was and taught him how to control the urge to kill and, when it rose, how to channel it into something productive, almost good. With Harry's help, Dexter also learned how to blend into society, how to pretend he had a heart and soul and feelings, how to be so inconspicuous no one would ever think him capable of the things he does. And Dexter is careful; he wants to follow the Code of Harry and get rid of the bad guys, but also needs to satisfy his own urges. He's a planner and he makes the most of his time with his victims.

In the book, Dexter works with the Miami police to catch a serial killer that ends up playing games - mind and otherwise - with Dexter. Through first-person narration, the reader is brought into Dexter's world as he delights in this new playmate that has appeared while trying to keep up appearances at work. It is this clever narration that moves the book above being just another serial killer book. Although the narration can drone on a bit at times, it really is what makes the book interesting. It allows you to see the two sides to Dexter, and even though he's a killer, you can't help but like him. He's funny, he's charming, he's a little OCD. But as the book reaches its climax and you discover more about Dexter, his new playmate and his past, you start to see him fall apart and show weakness, almost become - human.

While I found the most interesting element of the book to be the relationship between Dexter and the elusive killer, the supporting characters add their own spice. Deborah is Dexter's sister and a cop, like Harry, who wants desperately to catch the killer to prove herself a homicide detective. Lieutenant LaGuerta is consistently incompetent with a major crush on Dexter (who can't quite wrap his head around this idea of attraction). But Dexter does have a girlfriend, Rita, who is perfect for him due to being beaten by her ex-husband, which left her with no interest in any kind of intimacy. Sergeant Doakes has it out for Dexter and Deborah and, well, everyone it seems. And Harry, who has since died, appears in flashbacks and provides insight into how Dexter became the nice, polite, attractive, tidy, diligent, hard-working serial killer he is.

Despite the author photo, Jeff Lindsay writes in an engaging and compelling way, making you want to keep reading not just because you want to know whodunit, but because you actually like Dexter.

(I also watch the show, of course, but I only get the censored version on CTV. I've been told the uncut version is far superior. I can believe this; my favourite censored line so far is "mother lover".)

An author by any other name

I like to say I'm a fan of British detective/crime novels, but really I'm a fan of Reginald Hill and his Dalziel and Pascoe series. (Literally addicted, but that's for another post.)

However, since this is a finite series and I have pretty much caught up on all the books (still need to locate a few) I have decided to branch out and set my sights on Ian Rankin.

Ian Rankin has received considerable acclaim for his Inspector John Rebus series of detective novels, which contain snippets of Scottish history. So it was with great excitement that I picked up an Ian Rankin novel on a bargain table. The book: Bleeding Hearts. The verdict: almost too awful for words.

It should be noted that when I book-shop and see something by an author I like or would like to read, I tend to just grab the book and eagerly rush home to better study the content. In the case of Bleeding Hearts, I picked it up while in Parry Sound for Christmas. I was just thrilled to find an Ian Rankin book on the discount table; an author as praised and well-reviewed as he tends not to fall to the lowly depths of discount. But after reading this book, I can see why.

I think the problem stems from the fact this was Ian Rankin writing as Jack Harvey. I had no idea Rankin ever wrote anything under a pseudonym, but now that I know, I will forever avoid any Jack Harvey book. I can understand why an author would write under another name, especially if the author has created a series based on a certain character and wants to try something new. Writing under a pen name gives the freedom to explore new ideas, but one would expect a good writer to still write well, regardless of the published name. The only other example I can think of at this time is Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman; like him or hate him, Stephen King/Richard Bachman wrote pretty decent books. Even if you don't care for the subject matter, the writing was always good.

But not Jack Harvey. The book seemed to break every rule of good writing. It was full of cliches, far-fetched coincidences, crappy dialogue, extraneous and irrelevant characters, poorly-developed main characters, and an utterly ridiculous, trapped-in-a-corner-total-cop-out ending. It was like Dan Brown has morphed into a British detective novelist.

This will not stop me from reading Ian Rankin though; I'm quite looking forward to picking up Knots and Crosses, the first book in the Inspector Rebus series. As well, Rankin released Exit Music in September 2007, which is potentially the final book in the Inspector Rebus series. Hopefully this means he'll feel free to write about other subjects and settings without having to hide behind another name and without compromising in quality.

(Of course, I'm buying into the reviews here, and assuming the Rebus books are quality. I really hope I'm not disappointed again. But that is the chance one takes. Makes it kind of exciting, don't you think?)

The book that became the Oscar: a review

Cormac McCarthy doesn’t like quotation marks. He’s not always a fan of apostrophes either, which at times can grind on a person who likes her punctuation where it should be, when it should be there – punctual punctuation, if you will. But different construction can still yield a beautiful final product.

The description on the back of No Country for Old Men calls the novel “blistering” and, for once, this is not just hyperbole. The story takes place along the Texas-Mexico border and you can feel the heat: the heat of the sun, the heat of the desert, and the heat of the hunt. And this really is a hunting story, with one man – Anton Chigurh – hunting down another – Llewellyn Moss. This of course leads to a third man – Sheriff Ed Tom Bell – hunting down Chigurh. It’s a very sparse hunt too; no hard-to-believe escapes, no convoluted plans to snare the prey, no surprise characters that suddenly thwart the actions of the hunter. In a way, the writing is almost juvenile, as if McCarthy started writing a children’s book but ended up with a very grown-up story.

This is writing in its simplest form. McCarthy keeps the story moving and doesn’t waste time with superfluous description or back story. The only real back story we get is from Sheriff Bell’s narrations, but this is more Bell pontificating on the state of society and the world and how this is changing the small corner of Texas he has sworn to protect. Through this, though, we see a man who is proud to be sheriff but who is getting tired, wearing out and wondering why he sometimes even bothers; he reminisces and offers a eulogy for the way life was. Bell is tired, but McCarthy doesn’t set it up for the good sheriff to take one last brave ride and collar the outlaw. Bell does perform his duty as sheriff, of course, but this isn’t a story that gets wrapped up all pretty-like, with a big bow. The book instead plays out to what the reader soon realizes is really the only possible conclusion.

I’ve read that Sheriff Bell acts as the moral compass in a story of right and wrong, good and evil. But I don’t see him, or anyone, acting as a moral compass. Rather, Bell is just another man who gets involved in something that can’t be defined as simply right or wrong because that would imply knowledge of right and wrong. Instead, it’s about survival and as the events unfold, Bell realizes the world and life he knew can no longer survive.

McCarthy brings extraordinary people and events into the lives of some very ordinary people, but it never feels overdone. There is nothing preachy, nor is there a heavy moral slant. McCarthy simply tells a story – albeit a pretty grim, depressing one – and tells it very well. I want to use words like “gritty” and “raw” to describe the book, but that just feels too cliché. And perhaps that is what strikes me most about No Country for Old Men – it is not clichéd at all. It feels honest, from the characters to the setting to the way the events unfold. And that is what makes this such a fantastic read.

And it begins

I love books. Love, love, love them. They just make me so happy. And it’s not just the reading that I love. It’s the entire process behind creating a book that enthralls me. I love the way they look, the way they are presented to the world, the way the world responds. I love the bad ones as much – if not more – than the god ones, because the bad ones evoke so much more emotion in me. But good or bad, as long as a book makes me think and react and talk about it, then it has done its job.

So I’m going to talk about books here, and other things from the world of book publishing. Reviews, ideas, opinions, thoughts, whatever comes to mind. Maybe it will be useful, maybe it won’t, but at least it will be fun.

Yay books!