Angury

Hello everyone. This is my first ever book blog. I felt the need to create one this year as I graduate in June and will be starting my first job in August. I am going into quite a busy, hectic career but I didn’t want to lose my love of reading, so I felt that having a diary to keep me up to date of my to-read lists and a platform to write my reviews would give me motivation. As a reader, I enjoy a variety of genres, but you’ll find that my to-read list falls into three broad categories: Fiction, Medicine/Anthropology and Philosophy. My to-read list isn’t a list of every single book I want to read (which is several pages long), but just a list of books that are on my radar for the upcoming months. - Currently reading: The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov Books Read in 2017 January • The Scarlett Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne (3.5/5) • Against Nature by Joris-Karl Huysmans (4/5) • The Paper Menagerie and Other Stories by Ken Liu (4/5) • Journal of Solitude by Mary Sarton (3/5) • The Immoralist by Andre Gide (2/5) • Philosophy and Psychiatry: A Companion by Jennifer Radden (4/5) February • Against Interpretation and Other Essays by Susan Sontag (3/5) March • Maskerade by Terry Pratchett (4/5) • Exit West by Mohsin Hamid (3/5) • The Royal Game by Stefan Zweig (3/5) April • Beware of Pity by Stefan Zweig (4/5) • The Elegance of the Hedgehog by Muriel Barbery (3/5) May • Infinite Jest by David Foster Wallace (4/5) • The Essex Serpent by Sarah Perry (2/5) • Anthropological Approaches to Psychological Medicine edited Vieda Skultans & John Cox (4/5) • The Gambler and A Nasty Business by Fyodor Dostoevsky (2/5) June • Status Anxiety by Alain de Bottom (3/5) • The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker (4/5) • Train Dreams by Denis Johnson (2/5) • Death in Venice and Other Stories by Thomas Mann (3/5) • Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov (4/5) July • A Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant (4/5) August September • This is going to hurt: Secret Diaries of a Junior Doctor by Adam Kay (4/5) • Palace of the Damned by Darren Shan (3/5) • Brothers to the Death by Darren Shan (2/5) October • Middlemarch by George Eliot (4/5) • Stoner by John Williams (4/5) November • Indian Philosophy Volume I - Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (4/5) December • The Magus - John Fowles (4/5)

No, I don't think Fantasy is childish either, I just think that is the perception that many people get. I do think there is a perceived hierarchy in literature, as there is in most works of art. I don't think this is GRRM's fault. Most of the sexual scenes are in the TV series itself - I didn't find the books to be overly explicit. I thought they had a good level of harsh reality without going overboard and making it seem like a dystopia. Nor did I think it went completely the other way and made it a land of fairies (which I did sometimes find with LOTR). I'm not sure if incest, rape and slaughter is mainstream. I do appreciate that as Tolkien's work has been around far longer there has been time for stereotypes to develop which may have corroded the underlying message of his work, and as someone who read his series after watching the films, perhaps my perspective has been shaded - in fact, I know it has. I do accept that, and I wish I was able to view LOTR in the way that a lot of Fantasy fans do. I do not think there is any good or evil in Martin's universe, nor indeed do I think there is such as a thing in real life. In LOTR for example, Mordor and all its servants were just painted with one brush - they were all evil. No other perspective was given - that maybe from their point of view what they were doing made sense to them, that they weren't doing bad things but just trying to survive, that their motivations and actions were no different from our heroes. Indeed, I do not think that in A Song of Ice and Fire there are any heroes. Sure, in the first few books we get the sense that Arya Stark and Daenerys are goodies and the Lannisters are all evil, but this is turned on its head in the next few books, and as a reader you are constantly on the edge of your seat because you genuinely don't have a clue what is going to happen next.

Well sure, you could always point to a bigger and better book. Personally, I feel most books pale in comparison to Proust's In Search of Lost Time. But my point is, in the genre of Fantasy, I feel Martin has built a new path for the genre. I often feel that Fantasy gets the reputation of being a 'children's genre' or one that is aimed for holidays and weekends i.e. not 'real' writing, not something that you can learn from. I think Martin has helped to push away from this stereotype, and introduce the idea that Fantasy can be just as psychologically complex as some of the greatest works of literature. I was a bit confused by what you said here - are you saying that there is no definite good and evil in LOTR? Because I would strongly disagree - I feel like that is one of the things that really lets the series down, that all it really is is an overgeneralisation of good and evil with nothing in between. But isn't that the point of the series - that ultimately the quest for power and glory will not get you what you want? That the story will not end when a king (or queen) sits on the Iron Throne, because ultimately it is just a vicious circle where one person overthrows another, fuelled by the greed of humanity. Contrast this to LOTR, where once the ring is destroyed and Frodo et al skip happily along to the Grey Havens, there is no further story. No lesson has been learnt. Sure, I appreciate that this is also why I enjoy Fantasy so much - there is an abundance of cultures, kingdoms and regions within the lands of the genre. But I do not think this is lacking within Martin's universe. Every house in the series is different. It has its own history, its own culture, its own practices and beliefs, its own people filled with their own prejudices, its own food, clothing etc. I think the world Martin has created is just as rich and complex as any other series within Fantasy, but it also offers some lessons which many of us find difficult to swallow. To me, it is about how damaged we are as human beings, how much of our lives are taken over by emotions of passion, love, greed and hatred, and how ultimately we are all capable of doing horrible, horrible things no matter how much we like to look in the mirror and see a saint looking back.

Interesting. I wonder what has led to the increase.

Do you mean GRRM's universe pales in comparison in terms of the scale of the world, or the writing, or the background (or something else)? I guess it boils down to what you look for in a fantasy series. By move around, do you mean moving around physically? Certainly I agree that many characters stay in the same locations over several chapters, if not several books, and some people have become frustrated with but I wouldn't say this is a big issue. Much of the battle goes on in the characters heads, and that's where the story really develops. A plot line isn't necessarily continued through the wars (although it has been at times), but within the dialogues between the characters and the ongoing schemes behind peoples backs. The story is much more than a couple of wars and battles upon a field - it is a story about the wars between generations and their families, the rich and the poor. It goes far, far deeper. Finally something we can agree on.. .. and another thing that we don't. I agree that one of the big attractions of Fantasy is the escapism that it offers. However, I would argue that integrating new worlds with the world of the reader is where Fantasy books become successful. This doesn't necessarily have to be the real world that we live and breathe and call Earth, but the worlds inside our minds. Let me give you an example. The Harry Potter series used to be one of my all-time favourite series as a child. This was in part because of the imagination that it offered to my teenage mind. But it was also because when I started reading the books I was the same age as Harry. I grew up with him and his friends. Yes, it was about wishing you had been invited to Hogwarts and that you could buy Bertie Botts Every Flavour Beans, but it was also about things like having too much homework to do after class, having that one teacher who seemed to hate you, having arguments with your friends, developing a crush and then being embarrassed by it. It was these little connections with my own, internal world that not only made the Hogwarts real to me, but also gave me hope and comfort. I think if a Fantasy series is completely disconnected from reality, then it would be un-relatable to the reader, and for me, it would feel like a pointless read. Out of interest, where do you find the grey areas in LOTR?

I suppose this boils down to what you consider Fantasy. I think there are various sub-genres, and the Fantasy that you refer to is akin to Tolkien's legacy. For example, the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett is one of my favourite 'fantasy' series - but I don't think dragons or orcs feature much within it. To me though, that is still fantasy. But yes, I can see why, if you are a lover of Tolkien then A Song of Ice and Fire may not appeal to you. For me.. yes. This is one of the things that makes a Fantasy series good (for me). One of the attractions of the Fantasy genre is the ability to fully immerse yourself within another world, and this is prompted by the writers ability to paint a picture within our heads. These types of rich descriptions that go into detail about the feeling of sunlight on ones arms or the smell of the marketplace are what opens the doors to this new world. Without these details I would feel left behind as a reader - as if I wasn't experiencing this world fully. I think what has led Martin to be famous over this trait of killing off characters is that it reflects real life. It is a very common theme to read a book with the knowledge that all the heroes will survive to the end and the bad guys will fail. As a reader there is no sense of danger - in a way you already know the ending. I find that Martin is very good at conveying the complexity of human life - that people do die, sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes in traumatic circumstances - not everyone who is good lives until they are one hundred and everyone who is evil die in a big pot of fire and ash. And in a world as harsh as Westeros, I think this type of violence and death reflects the reality of the world that the characters live in. It also highlights the brutality of war, and the consequences of the human vices - jealousy, hatred and envy. I often find that Fantasy writers glaze over this fact - they paint war as a sword fight between two people, resulting in one victor and a happily ever after. We don't get to see the aftermath - the blood and guts, the human loss, the families that are torn apart and the generations that are destroyed in the process. I do appreciate why you may not enjoy the series (although I feel Martin is a better writer than most Fantasy authors who I have read), but I think that Martin shines a more realistic light over the genre of Fantasy - he has let go of the concept of black and white, of good and evil. I think he has made Fantasy more human.

How come? Was there something that you expected from the series that you felt it did not deliver? What makes a good fantasy series in your opinion? Apologies if my post sounds more like an an English examination that anything else, I am just curious.

I'm glad you're enjoying the series. I agree, Martin is a good writer and that makes it so much easier to delve into the world of Westeros and really enter into the characters lives. I too am a Fantasy fan and A Song of Ice and Fire is one of my favourite series. It offers an emotional depth into the characters that I haven't found with other fantasy books. It breaks down the boundary between good and evil and shows people as they really are - complex and damaged creatures. The harsh realities painted in the series are also (I feel) a refreshing break from the other, more fairytale-esque worlds that are sometimes found in the Fantasy genre. I find it interesting that you hate Cersei Lannister so much - I too was not a big fan of her, but now she is one of my favourite characters. I look forward to hearing how (and if) your thoughts on her change throughout the series. Hope you enjoy this miserable Sunday afternoon with your book.

I use Amazon for eBooks but for physical books I use Waterstones as I'm collecting points for a nice reward sometime in the future. (Plus I love walking into Waterstones stores and having a look around. Every time I see a Waterstones in the high street I let out a squeal of delight).

I don't wish to underestimate his influence on modern fantasy, and perhaps I am trying to interpret his works outside of their time. I am really comparing LOTR with a lot of modern fantasy that I read and enjoy and that is perhaps where my problem lies. It is interesting to note his influences for his works, and while I agree that one dimensional characters aren't necessarily a bad thing in light of the background of mythology, I guess they are a big problem for me. Character development is one of the main reasons I read novels, and indeed why I enjoy fantasy, so for me it is a big disadvantage to be left with such simple characters. I feel as if I am simply reading a textbook otherwise. Entering into a different world is of course another big reason to read fantasy, but I found it very difficult to enter the world of Middle Earth. I'm not sure if it was Tolkiens writing - while not brilliant, I wouldn't call it bad - or just the fact that I felt as if I didn't feel emotionally connected with the world. I knew the facts about where the cities and villages lay upon the map, yet the feeling of standing in a village, of feeling the wind in your hair and the smell of grass in your nostrils was missing from the books for me. I haven't read the Children of Hurin, and it was initially on my to-read list, but as I came away so disappointed with LOTR I'm not sure if it would be worth reading?

I come to this thread prepared to be slaughtered.. I used to consider myself a fantasy fan (not so much anymore unfortunately) and finally got around to reading both The Hobbit and LOTR. I was expecting a lot given my interest in both Fantasy from childhood and in authors who had cited Tolkien as their inspiration. I have to say I was disappointed by LOTR (please don't hurt me). I found the characters one-dimensional. Either you were good or you were bad. There did not seem to be any middle ground. Above all, the elves really frustrated me. It seemed as if to be an elf was to be a perfect being. Any item that had the prefix 'elvish' seemed to have near-perfect properties. I could find no depth in the characters. It felt as if there was a line drawn down the middle of the book, and everyone on one side was 'good' and everyone on the other was 'bad.' There was no escaping your fate. I felt no emotions as I read through the scenes, I gained no insight into the motives behind the actions or insight into the characters lives. I received a lot of facts, a lot of names of villages and cities, great Kingdoms and far-gone Kings.. but nothing about the turmoils that played within the characters lives. It all seemed very factual and straight forward. I know I am missing something very big here. However, I would say that the one thing that stood out for me was the dialogue. Much of it was enchanting to read, almost as if you were opening a book of poetry. I can see why the LOTR films stuck to so much of the dialogue from the books - they seem to open the door to another world just through their rhythm and symmetry. (I am really sorry but..) I have to say that I preferred the films to the books. I felt they captured the magic of Middle Earth in a way that I simply could not grasp through the books. The lack of insight into many of the characters minds just frustrated me so much. I felt like I was reading a history book filled with reams of facts and names yet no offering of humanity or emotion. Perhaps if I return to the series a few years down the line I will be able to view it through more mature eyes. For now though, I would love to hear what makes fans love the book so much (and please be kind to my criticisms).

Glad you enjoyed To Kill A Mockingbird - I agree that the characters have great depth to them, and that's where I feel so many lessons can be learnt from the novel. Also, please give In Search of Lost Time a go. It is a beautiful piece of work which will never leave you. It is definitely worth undertaking, and is the type of novel that needs to be read slowly, one day at a time, so it shouldn't necessarily take up a large part of your reading time. Other than that, I wish a happy new year and hope it is filled with joyous reading.

Have your thoughts changed since? To Kill a Mockingbird is one of my all-time favourites but it did take me a while to get into as well.

Interesting discussion re LOTR. I am planning on reading through The Hobbit and LOTR during my two-week travels starting tomorrow. I will be on a lot of plane journeys, trains and no doubt a lot of waiting time, and I was assuming that reading LOTR would offer some escape. Is Tolkien's writing quite difficult to get into then? I also have a couple of Pratchett's Discworld series lying around which I know for definite would offer a nice relaxing read, but I was hoping that I would finally be able to get through LOTR..

I have just started reading The Piano Teacher by Elfriede Jelinek. Bizarre story but so well written. Several of the passages have made me uncomfortable, not so much because of the topic but because of the richness of the writing.

What is it that people enjoyed about The Old Man and the Sea? I am curious as I just cannot get into Hemingway, yet he clearly resonates with a lot of people.

Can't believe it's December. I have just started reading The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway. It's only 88 pages so shouldn't take me too long. I've decided to concentrate on shorter works for now.

I have just started reading The Crying Lot of 49 with an aim to finish it (if possible). I agree that his writing is.. odd. Which I don't mind, it's just that there doesn't seem to be a reason for it (or, the more plausible explanation, I'm just not getting it). What makes Pynchon so famous? Also, does anyone have any 'tips' to read his works? Reading some of his sentences makes me feel like I'm swimming in a pool of mushy peas.

Yeah, I don't think it's a series you can binge watch (which I know is difficult with Netflix!). I always needed to take time to digest each episode before continuing with the next. I found that some of the episodes had some meaningful lessons which made me think about my own life and how I interact with technology on a day to day basis.

That is a good point (and I'm humbled that you recognise how passionate I am about this subject). I agree that the movie is unlikely to be completely factually accurate and some creative license will be used, but I do hope that they manage to keep to the spirit of Laings legacy. At the least, I hope that this film brings Laing back into the spotlight and opens up a debate about how we treat the mentally unwell and the direction we are heading in. Laing is well-known for his eccentric and at times dangerous behaviour, but I just hope that this film will portray a different side - a man who saw mental illness as more than just a set of chemical imbalances, who went against the status quo of his profession and saw his patients through a holistic lens and (I believe) set the ball rolling for community mental health care. But yes, you are right. It will to some extent be a dramatisation of his life (and there is a lot to dramatise), but if it really does go all topsy turvy at least I can sit back in the cinema and dream about Tennant instead.

Very interesting. I agree, it's such a grey area and ultimately I don't think we can ever find one 'answer' to these problems. Mental health problems differ for each and every person, and I think a good psychiatrist is one who is able to see each of her patients as individuals filled with loves, fears and joys of their own - lives that cannot be conveyed by a diagnosis and need to be understood rather than condensed. I hear a Soteria House was opened in Bradford here in the UK, but I was unable to find much information about it's current status and whether it was still running - I was hoping to volunteer with them for a while. However there is an organisation called the Critical Psychiatry Network in the UK which I follow: http://www.criticalpsychiatry.co.uk/ It is made up of a group of British psychiatrists who are critical of certain uses of the current diagnostic system and the use of psychopharmacology in certain settings. They have released some very interesting papers and hold regular events throughout the UK. While I don't necessarily agree with everything that the network says, I do think it is important to have this discussion. I think mental health problems change with time and culture, and it is up to each society to decide what we consider a problem, how we choose to treat it and how we choose to perceive those who suffer from such difficulties. I am hoping that this upcoming film helps to highlight this issue and hopefully stimulates a discussion on what we can learn from psychiatry in the past (I do think there are lessons we can learn) and what we should aim for in the future.

What are your thoughts on Laings writing? While I agree that his behaviour as a doctor was at times downright unprofessional, I found his book, The Divided Self to be rather enlightening. I find psychosis very interesting and I thought it was a different way of looking at the 'illness.' Also, I'd love to hear more about your research into anti-psychiatry. What conclusion did you eventually reach - do you think it is a movement that is needed?

Mad to be Normal is a biopic about R.D. Laing, a Scottish psychiatrist whose work had a significant impact on modern day Psychiatry and the anti-psychiatry movement. One of his most controversial ideas was Kingsley Hall; a centre in East London in which people suffering from psychosis were able to come and go as they pleased with no medication or restraint. Instead, the centre contained activities such as meditation, all-night therapy and role-reversal sessions. The place was also famous for its use of LSD (which at the time was legal), which was supposed to 'release inner demons and buried childhood traumas.' At least two people jumped off the buildings roof while the centre was open, and the house was raided by a drug squad. Easy to say, it was all a rather chaotic experiment. Possibly one of the most famous 'residents' was Mary Barnes, a woman who used to smear the walls with faeces, regressed to infancy for a time and fed from a bottle. She later became a famous artist and poet. There is more information about the residents there in this Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/sep/02/rd-laing-mental-health-sanity This biopic, with David Tennant playing Laing, is set during this exceptional experiment and covers the life of one of the worlds most renowned and controversial psychiatrists. Unfortunately no trailers have yet to be released, but a few photos have been released which show Tennant as Laing: I am a big fan of Laing, his most famous work arguably being The Divided Self and I am thrilled that his work is being brought into the public light - although he was very well known in his own time, with his books reaching the best-seller lists. I was wondering whether there were any other fans out there eagerly awaiting this film - or perhaps those who've never heard of him but are interested none the less!

I'm interested to hear how fans feel about this news: https://twitter.com/dragonmount/status/725790200006242305/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw Personally I'm thrilled that it has finally been confirmed. I'm also relieved that the series will be adapted into a TV series rather than a film which imo would never be able to capture both the depth and breadth of the magic that is The Wheel of Time.

I just finished watched the Crash Course videos on this novel which have given me insight into its background and how the storyline represented the real world - particularly its links with the history of Columbia. Would highly recommend watching the two, very short videos: