sirinrob

Having read 'The City of Dreaming Books' by the same author and really enjoying his style, I thought I'd read this novel, which is the second one in the Zamonia series. This is a stand alone novel, which concerns the adventures of Rumo, who is a Wolperting - think of a cross between a dog and a deer. Wolpertings are by nature warriors, so fighting is second nature to them, hence the episodes of 'blood and gore' in the novel. The novel starts with Rumo as a pup. He gets captured along with the dwarves who look after him. During his captivity he meets up with Zolostran Smyke who teaches him to speak and helps in his escape. After some, at times bizarre, adventures they part. Rumo finds his home city, learns what it means to be a Wolperting and falls in love and gains a sword which rejoices in the name of 'Dandelion'. At one point Rumo goes off to seek a token of love - a dangerous task as it turns out. Whilst he is gone his home city is 'attacked' and everyone there taken captive and taken into the Netherworld. Once he discovers they have all gone he sets out to rescue them. In parallel Smyke is also captured. After many adventures, mishaps, odd conversations Rumo finds where everybody is and helps release them. The short synopsis I've given is deliberatly vague so as not to spoil the fun. There are many plot twists and turns, lots of humour - even in the battle scenes. The list of characters includes Nocturomaths, a mad King, a talking tree, mechanical warriors lead by General Tick Tock amongst others. I enjoyed this as a fanatasy novel - its chock full of inventiveness and humour. There is a slightly flat part about 2/3 of the way through, which acts as a breather and provides explanation as to what has happened and what is to come. The last 150 pages are hectic - here the author uses a cut scene technique that heightens the tension well right to the end of the novel. Something I noticed is that there are sly references throughout the novel to the Norse legends which dont seem to be commented on in reviews, but which I found interesting. There is also an allusion to 'The Scottish' play as well. Underlying the novel weighty issues like life, death, love, good and evil are explored to a certain degree as well, without overwhelming the plot.

Picking up on the Nietzsche idea - 'Ecce Homo' in my experience encourages you to read the preceding books- just to make sense of Ecce Homo

My favourite fantasy writer is Walter Moers, read 'City of Dreaming Books' and halfway through finish tonight 'Rumo'. Highly inventive, funny and thought provoking.

totally agree - its the quality that counts. If someone has something to say that is articulate and well presented then let them. Those in it to make a quick buck, can imo get lost.

It's several years since I've read any novels by Dickens, but sorting out some books the other day came across my copy of 'Bleak House'. As preface to my comments, a little background to the novel seems appropriate. Like many of Dicken's novels, it appeared in monthly instalments. The last instalment was published in 1853 simultaneous with the book form. It proved a great success with Dicken's readers, but sufferred at the hands of the critics - the 'Spectator' commented ' We must plead guiltyto having found it dull and wearisome'. Such critical opinions seemed to stem from a comparison with 'David Copperfield', which had garnered critical praise. My reading of the novel hasn't led me to concur with the coeval critics, though I did find a small number of passages that seemed to stall the flow. The overall structure of the novel is intricate, with several strands connecting throughout. There is a strong sense of Dicken's compassion for the less fortunate in face of high handed self interest. His main target is the inquity of the Court of Chancery. He also targets the middle classes who make a lot of noise but achieve little. Many of the characters are satirically depicted to great effect, to the extent that they could be lifted as they are, placed in Gogol's 'Dead Souls' to great effect in my opnion. However one character who I found really irritating was Skimpole. In my view the satire involved with Skimpole went too far. My favourite characters were George, Mr and Mrs Bagnet, Jo, Allan Woodcourt and Lady Dedlock. The narrator, Esther, I found sympathetic if a little priggish at times. This is a difficult novel to summarize as there are so many interconnections, but the various strands are resolved by the end of the novel , with a few twists here and there. I enjoyed reading this and its on my reread list!

Sounds like another convert to Walter Moers's books - ive still to finish 'Rumo', but what i've read its very good....

I read and enjoyed Peter Ackroyds 'First Light' some years ago - it has a direct connection with the star Aldebaran, which is one of my favourite stars. Does anybody have suggestions for books with similar connections to known asronomical objects?

Thats my next one to read after 'Bleak House'

Right this has to be the 'Ultimate Alaphabet' by Mike Willis - I have the 'Ultimate Noah's Ark' which is about pairing up animals - both published in the 1980's. The alphabet book has the (ISBN 1-85145-050-5) hope that helps

Just to add to the list 'The Vendetta' by Balzac - taut, but slightly melodramatic towards the end, but still very readable - spurred me on to more of his work - just got a copy of 'Cousin Bette' which is much later and from what I've read so far more polished.

Usully paper scraps of paper - at least I can ditch them when they thjey get grotty. However I do have one nice wooden one which i reserve for certain books. dont get on with the metal ones as I find they are a bit cumbersome - but then thats me

continuation..... Turning attention now to the atrocity question. This difficult to answer, because it depends on how you define atrocity and monster. Atrocity is fairly easy to deal with - an act of wanton cruelty, monster is abit less tractable. A working defintion could be a person who performs an act of inhuman or horrible cruelty. I'm not entirely happy with that, but its a start. The anti-semitism, racisism inherent in the Nazi ideology didn't suddenly come into being with the rise of the Nazi party. Many of the concepts had beentaken up before the first World War, albeit by extreme elements of German society. After the First World War, many of the basic concepts became ingrained into society. The defeat of the German nation and the burden of the terms of the Treaty of Versailles caused many Germans to feel unjustly treated. The left wing and the Jews stood branded as turncoats who caused the defeat. Immediately after the WW1, Germany was in astate of uproar. The Weimar republic was an attempt to restore order. The weakness of the Weimar government allowed extremist parties particularly on the right to establish inroads. The Nazi party was the most successful of these. When the Weimar republic collapsed it wasn't cut and dry that theNazi party would sieze power, but the lack of coordination by opposing political groups allowed them to do so. Once the Third Reich had been established many ordinary Germans took it upon themselves to harass and intimitade Jews within Germany. The situation got so out of hand that laws had to be put in place indicating what was permitted - these are the so called Nuremburg Laws. Now the question arises did the people who imtimidated Jews commit atrocities? From the evidence I can gather no - they were trying to be good Germans for the wrong reasons imo. Hannah as a female SS guard is abit of a curiosity, since there were relatively few female SS guards. From the first Nazi policy was to restrict females to subordinate roles. That said there isa myth that all good German women stayed home, produced lots of Aryan babies and maintainthe home. Many did, but equally many of the lesser roles (secretaries, radio operators and the like) were taken by women, especially towards the end of the war. Schlink carefully avoids the true SS monsters in the novel, though there is a fleeting refernce to 'The Mare' who was an infamous SS guard who had a penchant for stamping inmates to death, hence her nickname. Hannah and her codefendants are accussed of a crime by ommission i.e. they didnt open the church door. That still makes them guilty in my view but not monsters, since when they put the women in the church there was no indication that the church would be bombed. I'll leave it there for now

Right folks , i'[ve looked back through the posts and spotted some loose ends I left. additionally I'll try to adress the 'why do ordinary people commit atrocities without being labelled monsters' question. From the start it is apparent that Hannah lives in her own world, possibly as away of coping with her impaired literacy. As the novel progresses she seems to sink into this alternative world more and more. The prison governess indicates this when Micheal visits. In my view Hannah does not show any remorse at all, just simply withdraws till her only recourse is to commit suicide. Both Micheal and Hannah are emotionally impaired - Hannah probably is because its a way of defending herself assuming we accept her impaired literacy (I'm not convinced on that). Micheal is emotionally impaired even before he meets Hannah as the monologue in Chapter 5 shows thinking something which wasnt approved off by his mother was a sin etc etc. Hannah's behaviour reinforces his feeling of shame. Later on he makes a statement that even as a grown man he still needs to make up to the world and the woman after been with her. He never seems to grow up. He only visits the prison because the governess more or less tells him to, he only visits the daughter because Hannah via her will tells him to. Another facet of this with Micheal is the circumstances under which he marries Gertrud. ....'She [Gertrud] was also studying law; we studied together, and began our clerking together. We got marrried when Gertrud got pregnant'. The unspoken implication of the last sentence in that quote is if Gertrud hadnt got pregnant then Micheal wouldn't have married her imo. continued in next post......

Well they would be long replies and go outside the novel to other sources etc so I have refrained....

In addition I have not responded much as the replies would be an essay - which many on here, in my view ,do not like.

the problem with images, especially if the same ones are repeatly shown, is people beccome desensitized, which is the danger which is being alluded to here. There is also the problem of selectivity in which images are taken/shown. There can be political motives behind the selectivity. Films tend to in my view open to bias - often protraying events from the Victor's point of view.

About a month ago, I went into my local Works shop and spied a volume of 20th Century of Poetry. One poet really caught my eye, Thomas Kinsella. The 2 poems presented in the volume spoke to me. Since then I have unsuccessfully asked in Borders and Watersones for any of his collections - seems with them if its not YA forget it. Tracked down a collection evetually from amazon.co.uk that fitted the bill - it covers his output from 1956 -2006, albeit selectively as he is prolific! The poems in this volume range from intensely lyrical through social comment to political satire. As a sample here is 'Leaf Eater' On a shrub in the heart of the garden, On an outer leaf, a grub twists Half its body, a tendril, This way and that in blind Space: no leaf or twig Anywhere in reach; then gropes Back on itself and begins To eat its own leaf. This one of the poems that attracted me to Kinsella. I havn't read all the poems in the collection , but feel sure many happy hours of exploring.

About a quarter through 'Bleak House' - still enjoying it.....

i fall into the 'I like this book' camp. As has been noted before it seems to be a conversation between Holden and the reader. Yes he does goof up and get irritating and sensible - usually at the same time. Attentive reading does help - there are lots of telling details if you do. I really enjoyed reading this and its on reread list plus I'm looking out for more by Salinger as I like his style.

Ok - knew about the Milgram experiment - but still feel unconvinced by Micheal's (Schlink's) arguments. Dont forget avout my remarks about 'privilged' inmates either. They had the privilige - Einsatzgruppe in Auschwitz Gruppe - those inmates entrusted to 'feed'the creamatoria being an extreme example - prililige being aderquate food. Once they ended their time of duty they formed the first consignment fotr the next 'Einsatzgruppe'

Just started 'Les Miserables', think its going to take a bit of time to finish

Been waiting for this question as its a toughie. inital thoughts are Micheal's argument she fell into the SS (gravity is a wonderful force I dont buy - she chose to enlist- we dont know under circumstances exactly. On the face it her choosing the girls to read to her was a humane act, but in my view was whitewash as she swore them to secrecy why she selected them and she knew they would be sent to Auschwitz. Such 'priviliged' inmates were part of the way the Lagers operated - they were known as Kapos and served in alot of cases as minor functionaries like distributing food (their privilge being extra food) or keeping new inmates in their place. The second part i'm going away to have a further think about as its tough to answer

Don't worry Beckett is an acquired taste - I like him but then im really odd

Like others I can't get into Murakami - I usually get bored at some point, not caring what happens. Wind up Bird being the best example - imo strung out self centred agnst.

Didnt realise about the site ad - will in future. I dont order much from amazon.co.uk rather rummage in a book shop or get them to order for me as I have obscure tastes ( Samuel Beckett for example)