This was an in-depth exploration of the desperation of middle-class and the ambiguity of love, in the guise of a thriller.
Ferdinand Sponer is a This was an in-depth exploration of the desperation of middle-class and the ambiguity of love, in the guise of a thriller.
Ferdinand Sponer is a day-time taxi drive in Vienna. He has a girlfriend he intends to marry, but is obsessed with a women out of his reach, and he has a dead man that seems to cling to life through him.
Sponer is extremely unpredictable. We begin the story with him stalking Marisabelle, a high-society socialite who rides in his cab one day. He repeatedly stalks and harasses her in the day, and goes on to meet Marie, his girlfriend, in the night. We have no clue what motivates him or why he behaves in the way he does. The writing shields Sponer's thoughts from us. Like in a play you watch him act.
◃───────────▹
dead man and desperation
It is when he finds himself unexpectedly with a dead body in the back seat of his cab, that he starts to showcase his real self. His reaction to the corpse and the ramifications of reporting to the police is wild and erratic. I struggled to understand his actions initially and felt like a crucial piece of information was being hidden from me. As the night chases dawn, you learn more and more about Sponer's thoughts and his past and slowly begin to perceive him.
He is a man desperate to escape the reality of his poverty. Marie, his taxi, his apartment, his plain clothes - are all part of the world he lives in, the reality of what makes him Ferdinand Sponer. But, what he aspires for throughout the story is Marisabelle, Jack Mortimer's, hotel, clothes, and identity itself. He experiences periods of anxiety and unreal periods of calm as he struggles to balance between these two worlds - one he comes from and one he wants to be in.
His impersonation of Jack Mortimer could be the act of a man creating an alibi, but also the act of a man suddenly enamoured and curious about this mysterious American. He sets out to steal one night. One night of living as someone far removed from his reality and one night for subjugating his fate. But in the end he inevitably has to return to his former world.
◃───────────▹
favourite moments
There were so many symbolic moments in the story that I could write about them in detail for hours on end. Here are a few: (view spoiler)[ ★ The depiction of 1930s Vienna. Sponer being a taxi driver, we explore the city through him. The routes he take, the landmark he uses, and the places he visits. With the places having German names, I found it hard to keep track of them, but I thoroughly enjoyed the visual depiction of Sponer's Vienna. ★ While fleeing the Montmayors, Sponer grabs for Mortimer's passport and nothing else, not even money that would help him flee. He grabs for the passport that could give him another identity. ★ The description of Sponer's savings as just few notes when the police find the envelope. When Sponer talks about his savings, it is significant but when the police find it you realize how poor he really is. ★ 'The air in the apartment feels stuffy and smells of food' - Sponer continuously connects this phrase with the world he inhabits, the same as Marie's. When he reveals that he went to Cadet school but couldn't complete it, you feel the regrets and past opportunities weighing down on him. ★ The final chapter and Winfred's reaction to Sponer. Sponer makes a heroic effort returning to Mortimer's hotel and intends to 'surrender with some dignity'. He prefers his wrongful conviction to his mundane unsatisfactory life. When everyone in the hotel ignores him and doesn't seem interested in arresting him, he's forced to let the night go and return to a normal day. ★ 'I was Jack Mortimer' - Sponer accepts in the very end that he was a distinct man for a night, but with Marie in his arms and safely back in his old reality. (hide spoiler)]
◃───────────▹
-1 star for the horrible treatment of female characters
The writing and symbolism is so strong that it's really heart-breaking the way the female characters are written. They are either fiercely loyal to their men or heartless bitches who use men. They are linear and have no shades of their own. I hated how Marisabelle and Marie were treated.
Sponer literally stalks and harasses Marisabelle and yet towards the end she is shown as vain and lacking compassion. She sees him worthy of her attention only when Sponer has a cloud of crime and mystery hung over him. Once he is deemed innocent she chides him for returning to her. She might be an opportunist and that would be okay, but given that all the other female characters share a similar disregard to their development, I resented the end to her story.
Marie on the other hand is an angel. She knows very evidently that Sponer doesn't love her and only keeps her close because she is convenient, yet she will go to the edges of the world to save him. Her escape from the police while retrieving Sponer's money was elaborately written as though to show the reader how much she cares for Sponer. But when she returns, Sponer has already left. My heart broke for her. I get the era this was written in, but she deserved to be someone more than Sponer's aid. She is incredibly intelligent, resourceful, and kind. I loved her.
Winfred on the other hand is Marie for a different man. And Consuela is Marisabelle for another man. All the four female characters are shallow, unexplored, and primarily drive the plot for the male characters. Jack Mortimer was more developed than these four combined.
#JusticeforMarieAndMarisabelle
◃───────────▹
You should read it but with a pinch of salt, if you're a feminist.
Like I said, I get the era this was written in. I ultimately choose to critique the bad and accept the good. The story is not indeed a thriller, because who killed Jack Mortimer is fairly evident mid-way. The story is rather a study of Sponer and his quest for the unattainable and his gamble over a night to merge worlds and rid the misery of his reality....more
This was my first Japanese muder mystry novel, which even with it's western influences left an inimitable impression on me.
Following our humble vagabThis was my first Japanese muder mystry novel, which even with it's western influences left an inimitable impression on me.
Following our humble vagabond detective, Kosuke Kindaichi, unravel an upsetting familial murder mystery in a post world war era Japan formed for a great reading experience. Since the book was probably written after his character and his mannerisms were well established, I felt like I missed out on understanding the essense of Kindaichi. The book though follows the standard template and gives us a genius who satisfactorily solves a locked-room murder mystery. Maybe not a savant-level genius but instead an above-average intelligent and sensitive man in a kimono.
I liked the picturesque description that painted the image of the era and planted me right in the middle of Kindaichi's adventures. I have to say that Kindaichi is a lot more expressive and deviates from the stoicism we've come to expect from literary detectives. He gasps, he closes his eyes in frustration, he scratches his hair, he emotes like any other character and seems more relatable and real because of it. I liked that there is no aura of secrecy around him and he feels shock, surprise, and frustration right alongside the reader.
The story in itself is nothing deviantly original, although it did maintain its integrity and packs a neatly drafted mystery. I'm not one to try and guess the culprit with every crook of the story, I'd rather the story unveil by itself and deliver it's finale. And I really enjoyed what this book had to offer. ...more
Let it be known that the first ever novel I read was 'Why didn't they ask Evans?' by Agatha Christie. As a fourteen year old discovering the beauty ofLet it be known that the first ever novel I read was 'Why didn't they ask Evans?' by Agatha Christie. As a fourteen year old discovering the beauty of fiction, Christie gave me a world of danger and possibilities, of immense questions and a spectacular solution. It was nothing short of venturing on a journey through exotic lands with your camera in immaculate posture ready to capture all you can. I would attribute the hunger for new stories I've cultivated over the years, to the queen of detective fiction herself. Going back to her work feels like coming home.
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd gives us Poirot in his subtlest form, urging the reader to solve a mystery that seems to have been solved before it even began.
It's been a while since I read Poirot. I did watch the latest movie: Death on the Nile and found it woefully lacking. In a way, the book was a reintroduction to Poirot and the elements that any avid Poirot reader would connect to him immediately.
Is this The Agatha Christie masterpiece?
Being the third novel published featuring the acclaimed Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, The 'Murder of Roger Ackroyd' doesn't have any dearth of praises and accolades. It has also been touted as the best crime novel ever written and lauded for its surprise twist ending. I must confess I did read the novel with unbridled anticipation for the famous ending. Whether I was satisfied or not is secondary, because for a book published in 1926, Christie does give a controversial ending that has undoubtedly inspired a generation of crime writers. But does it stand timelessly tall, deserving its praise?
[Spoiler warning: I find it improbable to review the book without including spoilers. So, if you are a Christie/Poirot fan - abandon the review right here, because I can vouch you will enjoy the novel.]
The Setting
The entirety of the novel takes place in King's Abbot, a village somewhere near Liverpool. It begins with the suicide of the wealthy widow Mrs. Ferrars, distressing her fiance Mr Ackroyd. Our view to the story is through the lens of Dr. James Sheppard, the principal narrator/confidant of Mr. Ackroyd. We are introduced to the Ackroyd family, the servants, the secretary, the family friend, all of whom take their place in spectrum of suspicion.
Christie doesn't let us pause anytime from start to finish, demanding our undivided attention because there is a lot happening in King's Abbot. Every character seem to have something to hide, very so often a shade of doubt is thrown on them, letting the reader decide whether it is a clue or a distraction. The tale of 'Who could have murdered Roger Ackroyd' is spun with dexterity enticing the reader in classic Christie fashion. There is a balance of give and take of information, with enough clues littered across the narration that tempts the reader to form links and theories, but never enough to arrive at an answer.
"So wicked the way people went about saying things, And yet, the worst of it was, there was usually a grain of truth somewhere in these wild statements."
In retrospect, I don't think it was ever possible for the reader to solve the mystery because we are rarely given essential data to form the complete picture. While Poirot runs around the town, gathering clues and forming opinions, we are limited in our view of his mind through a third-party narrator, who appears to be as clueless as us. When the final plot twist is revealed, the desired effect is to shock the reader as the story takes a route we never knew existed, but instead of awe I felt like my connection to the story was severed.
A story of an unreliable narrator
Christie revealed in her autobiography in 1977 that the central idea for the novel was given to her by her brother-in-law, who introduced a possibility of the murder being committed by a 'Dr. Watson' type character. She obviously ran with the idea. Dr. Sheppard fits into the tidy shoes of 'companion of a famous detective' rather well. He endures Poirot's idiosyncrasies, acts as a sounding board for Poirot's ideas and lends a hand in the ongoing investigation. Much like Dr. Watson, it is through his narration that we enter this make-believe world in King's Abbot. By making Dr. Sheppard the murderer, Christie gives a firm shake to the reality rooted in the story so far, telling us we never really had a right to believe a word of this narration.
It is not just the story that changes course with this revelation, every piece of narration written develops a sense of duplicity, giving it a retrospective ambiguous shroud. When I read a detective fiction, I tend to look at all the characters and see if they fit the cutout of the murderer, so I gave Dr. Sheppard the same treatment. I didn't have much evidence or intuition to support me, but I did wonder if he could be the murderer, and this thought made the final revelation not so staggering for me.
What didn't work for me was the abruptness with which Christie reveals her final trump card. Before we could get accustomed to the idea of Dr. Sheppard being the murderer, the novel ends. While I understand that the ending preserves the narrative style and integrity from start to finish, it deprives us of clarity that could have been provided in the form of other characters perceiving the shocking news.
Being used to the Poirot fanfare, I was disappointed by the final confrontation scene, because it takes place in private. There is no audience to gasp along with the reader, who form a crucial relatable link to the story, which makes the final scene appear suspended from the rest of the narration, severing my link to the story so far.
What this 'twist' does is also dilute the significance of the earlier clues, convoluted storylines and character conflicts, giving you an impression that a large part of the novel was designed to digress your attention, or rather get it tangled in insignificant bearings. Somehow that doesn't sit right with me.
If we solely consider the fact that this was done is 1926, essentially re-defining the should-have's and would-have's of detective fiction, I would give some allowance because it was done first and done how!
The joy of a Detective Fiction
I certainly struggled with my feelings when I finished the novel and as stated above there were things that worked for me and things that didn't, but the sheer joy of reading the detective fiction genre again, and too an Agatha Christie, was very much worth any skirmishes I had with the plot.
"The truth, however ugly in itself, is always curious and beautiful to the seeker after it."
Christie writes in a past-paced, need-to-know-basis narration that makes you feel like you're on an electric train that won't stop or slow down until you reach the destination. Pages fly by and you would just consume it all without a frown. Every detail given has a significance, every character introduced play a part and nothing goes to waste. I would suggest readers going through a slump to pick up this genre to kick-start their reading again. Works with me every time.
As I said in the beginning, reading Agatha Christie feels like coming home. I enjoyed my time with the book....more
I wasn't disappointed when I finished this book, I was incensed. I was duped into believing without a shadow of doubt that I would have a great time rI wasn't disappointed when I finished this book, I was incensed. I was duped into believing without a shadow of doubt that I would have a great time reading this book. Never again am I reading a book recommended to me by a ‘famous books to read’ list, I vow.
Before I begin ranting about the absolute incredulity that is this book, I want to say something nice. Donna Tartt can write. Yes, her prose is great, she knows how to build suspense, how to draw readers in and I do not necessarily consider this a bad book. The Secret History has potential, so much potential, that once I finished the book I felt like I witnessed something grand in the making that never reaches the culmination point it deserves.
Now back to the ranting. Needless to say it has spoilers.
I wonder why GenZ is so obsessed with the book? Gee, it couldn't be because the book seems like a glorified story of an insensitive bigot getting cancelled on twitter and the drama that follows. Donna Tartt somehow manages to encapsulate the essence of the internet culture today in her book written 30 years back - the obsession with aesthetics. That is not to say that humans haven't always been fascinated with beautiful things throughout history. It's just that in the world we live today, time is fast, everything feels connected and validation is currency. So, I get why many GenZ readers would connect with a group of six students who seem to exist in an untouchable alien plane of reality.
And I was equally singing the praises of the book when I was reading the first half. The two stars that I have given are definitely for the brilliance of part 1, a reverse whodunit among a group of elitist classic students slowly unravelled through the eyes of the outsider. I loved it and was held captive until the book collapsed unto itself in the second half. The absurdity that is the second half, the mediocrity served on a pompous platter, the sheer unoriginality of it all made my brain shrink. I was so fed up by the time I finished the book I took a one week’s break before I reviewed it, just so I wouldn't sound like an angry crow.
First of all, Richard, the narrator, the underdog, the outsider. He starts the story by stating his fatal flaw is 'a morbid longing for the picturesque at all costs'. And it took me almost 200 pages to realise what a load of bullshit that is. WHO DOESN'T LONG FOR THE PICTURESQUE AT ALL COSTS RICHARD?? HUH? 'Look on the bright side' 'Focus on the silver lining' - It is simply a humane thing to long for the beautiful, to gloss over the bleak and to imagine yourself as a protagonist of some elaborate adventure story and consider all your perils as 'character development'. And who is the one group of people who definitely do this? PEOPLE WHO READ BOOKS! Duh. You really didn't do anything great there Richard. Stop using fancy words to say that your life is shit and you like to pretend it's Gucci, you dumbnut. All he does is drink, pop pills, moon over Henry and use Camilla as a beard and somehow he's the victim? Well, screw that.
Henry was the star of the book without a doubt. The obscurity of his intentions and feelings by making Richard the narrator works. And it's all going great, you know. Henry has a depth of character, he has grey shades and his morality is wobbly. A brilliantly crafted character, for sure. So, where do you lead all this to? BY MAKING HIM SHOOT HIMSELF FOR CAMILLA? CAMILLA OF ALL PEOPLE? REALLY? You make a brilliant character end his life over something akin to a schoolboy crush and you expect what? Sympathy? Oh god, the sheer injustice. I will start a petition online called ‘Justice for Henry Winter’. He deserved better.
Do not get me started on Camilla. I’m not even sure if I am angry with Camilla or for Camilla. I understand that the study of classics is a male dominated field and Camilla being the only female in the class could be justified. But how will you justify turning Camilla into a sort of modern Helen of Troy, an object for half the group’s obsession? In the name of mystique, there is literally no character development for Camilla. She is beautiful, achingly so, that is all I know about her. What bullshit? Even Francis, the most eventless character in the group has more of a depth than Camilla, who supposedly drove HENRY TO SUICIDE? How do you manage to reduce the only prominent female character in your book into a token, an ornament for gazing but not touching? How dare you? If you told me the book was written by a man I would believe you.
And Julian: the most useless character in literature ever. WHAT INFLUENCE DID HE REALLY HAVE OVER THE GROUP? I’m sorry, his capacity and involvement in the story is the same as that of Judy Poovey, who I definitely liked more. He’s so blah and meh and gah that it’s such a stretch that he is some sort of magic wizard teacher. Tartt commits the most basic literature flaw by telling and not showing. Stop telling us he’s god’s gift to earth and SHOW US HOW!
I don’t even feel like talking about Francis and Charlie. Charlie can throw himself off a cliff and Francis deserved better friends than these losers. And Bunny, it really shouldn’t be a crime to deprive the world of yet another racist, homophobic, and misogynistic white man, thank you very much.
--------------------------------------
How is this book even famous? Like this must have been some sort of a snowball effect right? Who the hell got it rolling? I need to know. I want to confront them and gift them some good books. This is four days of my life I will never get back. I need restitution.
If this is one of your favourite books, just… diversify. Read more good books. Pick up Dickens maybe or Christie or bloody hell go back to Rick Riordan. Do I sound like a snob? Maybe. But don't you dare hate me when you love a book full of snobs. I could delete all of this review and just say 'This book is overhyped, avoid it at all costs' and it would be the truest statement I have ever uttered....more
I had a cute little paperback of this book, which I had bought in the re-sale market. I had been meaning to read the novella for a really long time. MI had a cute little paperback of this book, which I had bought in the re-sale market. I had been meaning to read the novella for a really long time. Many people give the Jekyll and Hyde reference when talking or writing and I always wondered what that was.
When I started reading the book, I really liked the build up of suspense with each character introduced and with each chapter. But, I unintentionally gave myself a major spoiler when I was in the middle and I was praying throughout the second half that the spoiler was wrong. It wasn't. But with the spoiler too, I enjoyed the story.
In this book the story overpowers the writing. Though the concept is simple in its definition, it is presented in a complex and beautiful manner. I really liked the relation between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The writing was good too but it wasn't extraordinary. That is the reason why the story overpowers the writing and makes the book appealing.
A great classic thriller, must read if you haven't already.
Exciting Amazing and Enticing. I got lost in Bryson's world and loved it..! Exciting Amazing and Enticing. I got lost in Bryson's world and loved it..!...more
Gripping, mesmerizing, contradicting, alluring story that has its own soul and life. Steig Larsson captivates your attention and refuses 5 Stars..!!
Gripping, mesmerizing, contradicting, alluring story that has its own soul and life. Steig Larsson captivates your attention and refuses to let go until you reach the very end.
Mikael and Lisbeth form and unusual alliance that results in a ferocious bond. They are so opposite yet are drawn together. Its not a love story though ( I would have wished it was!) It speaks of an intellectual connection that is based on reluctant respect on Salander's side and admiration and fascination on Blomkvist's side. They are somehow perfect misfits..!!
I didn't know how to take Mikael in the beginning. I read romance novels and am a hopeless romantic and to see a ladies man without any redeeming quality was a hard pill to swallow. But that is what Larsson aims. He injects us with the flaws and flaunts in his characters and make the intrigue and seduce us until we fall in love with them. He shows no excuses for Blomkvist. He is what he is. At one time Mikael accepts that he is a bad father, but somehow it comes off as a statement rather than a lamentation. Their are no excuses and explanation for what makes Mikael Blomkvist. He is just a person with flaws and talents who you can either accept for what he is or not.
As for Salander, she is so passionately written you without a fail will be enticed by her. It is actually an irony that Larsson as created a character with such allure and mystery that half the book you spend figuring her out. She is a literary treasure. I was fortunate to encounter her..!!
I also wanted to applause a well written sequence in the book. The part where Lisbeth gets molested. I was actually disgusted with such logical way it was played out in the beginning. But this is the most crucial stage where you understand Lisbeth Salander. Make no mistake she is no Victim..! Yes, she was molested but every single sentence screams that it was Lisbeth's fault. She never even doubts herself. There is no self pity or self doubt. She takes it in a way every girl should, that is understanding that the person who molested her was nothing but a creep who doesn't deserve her pain. She retaliates and strikes back and Dear God, I hope you never cross her. My mind was screaming "That's my Girl" the entire time. She was in one word Legend!
This is a book every one should read. It will boggle your mind and inflict it with it's worth. A most definite must read...!!!!...more
One fact that became glaringly clear as I decided to stop reading this book was I am so not the target audience. I picked the book because DND at 50%
One fact that became glaringly clear as I decided to stop reading this book was I am so not the target audience. I picked the book because I love Matt Damon and partially enjoy heist and spy movies. My stint with Robert Ludlum in the past hadn't been so bad. So you can picture me super excited for no reason other than built up expectations.
Clearly Ludlum has done a lot of research, on international criminals, CIA, Europe... He etches a very colorful picture. You can practically feel like you're running with Jason and Marie in the outskirts of Zurich or in the posh alleys of Paris. I definitely commend him for his prose.
But once I get into the story, I have so many problems. Being a feminist Marie makes me want to gouge my eyes out. The man kidnaps you, slaps you, uses you as human bullet shield and you are calling him 'my love' three chapters later! And risking your life and career for him!!!
[image]
I want to know how is it possible to fall in love with someone like Jason in a way that Marie does. Like how?? I would love to debate this and get some sort of explanation.
She doesn't go back to Canada and even though bodies are piling up right and left, she is ready to sacrifice herself at the alter of St. Jason??
And to be very frank, I understand Jason more than Marie. He's someone with memory loss who is trying hard to survive and save his life. His taking Marie hostage and his behaving brutal with her can be justifiable because he doesn't have time to think about delicate sensibilities cause there are bullets flying. And I even understand his love for Marie, because she's one of the handful he has interacted with and has developed a basic level of trust. I get how he could fall in love. But, Marie just feels like a glorified accessary, someone to sooth Jason, provide him with answers, feed him intel and nothing more.
I just couldn't stomach this enough to continue reading. I mean these are the two main characters and I don't particularly like either of them.
Also, Carlos?? Reminds me of a 70s Bollywood villain. What's the deal with him? He's evil just for the sake of being evil? No rhyme and reason? Ugh where is character development when I need it!
[image]
I had even not watched the movie, because by an unsaid law I always read the book before watching any adaptation. But this killed any intention I had. I'll just get my Matt Damon dose from other movies.
If you are a gluten for spy novels go for it, but otherwise just drop it. This did not age well. ...more
I don't usually pick this genre at all. The only ghost books I have read are of Kristen Ashley's and lets face it they are hila 3.5 spooky.. Stars.!!
I don't usually pick this genre at all. The only ghost books I have read are of Kristen Ashley's and lets face it they are hilarious..!! But this one was a novelized version of a horror movie. I definitely wouldn't have picked if not for Christina Lauren.
I like Gavin. He was a sweetheart. He trusted easy, loved easy and was pretty easy throughout. Delilah was damn unique. I mean she liked gore...!!
It was like the tale of two weird perfections.. They fit together well.
And then there was the house. I loved how CL gave life to it. It was personalized and made a person without losing its ethnicity. it was a monster, but you do understand it. It does not just remain as the faceless monster of a horror movie whose aim is to kill. It has a personality.
There were some loose ends. It was boring in the middle. Oh well, I never said I was a fan of Horror. So I experimented with this one and found out this genre is NOT for me. But since its a CL I did like this one to an extend. It would make a damn good movie for sure..!!!...more