The Van

Have you ever felt like someone should feel bad? Had that little devil on your shoulder, and let it whisper in your ear, filling your head with poison, covering up the guilt you'll feel later. I guess the devil metaphor was made to make people feel better... But in 'The Van', you can see how the situation has built up to breaking point. It's quite amazing really, but seeing I've just finished it, I still feel kind of in pain. Like my head is kind of sore. You bond with the characters, and it hurts you to see the characters do stupid things. It's a brilliant book, but very irritating at the same time. 

The book is called 'The Van', but the van doesn't actually come into the story until about halfway, maybe a bit less. The book begins, and you slowly realize that Jimmy Sr has lost his job, probably because of his age (or more, they want someone younger). It shows you how unhappy he is. He describes this feeling in his stomach, this ball of air, hard and cold. He feels lonely, and depressed. The family is poor, and no one is the same as the last book. But finally, nearing the middle of the book, things change for the better. Bimbo (Jimmy Sr's mate) decides to buy a chipper van, because he too has been made redundant. The book is in third person, but it mainly describes Jimmy's line of thought, so it's really from his point of view. And when Bimbo is fired, Jimmy becomes happier because he can now spend time with his best friend. Things pick up, Bimbo buys the van and after some hard work fixing it up, they start to sell fish and chips outside the local pub. It takes off. They make a small fortune on the first night. Though Bimbo was the one that bought the van, they're partners, and Jimmy gets half the profit. But things build up. Looking back on it, it's hard to tell where things start, but eventually things get really bad. And it ends on a bad note. Well, no, not a completely bad note. Things should get better afterwards. But not after they do some pretty stupid things. 


Roddy Doyle is pretty amazing. Just the way he writes it. He captures it beautifully. Well, as beautifully as possible when it's the working class Irish he's writing about. Maybe beautiful is not the right word... but wonderfully. One example of brilliant writing is when he goes on for pages and pages about just how happy everyone is that in an international game of soccer, the Irish bet the Romanians. After describing in depth the scene at the pub, the section ends with:


And then he [Jimmy Sr] went home and Veronica was in the kitchen and she did a fry for him, and he cried again when he was telling her about the pub and the match and meeting Jimmy Jr. And she called him an eejit. It was the best day of his life.

*   *   *

And then they got beaten by the Italians and that was the end of that.

*   *   *

Bimbo put the keys in etc, etc.


The book explores human nature. When I went into the kitchen after reading the book and explained my disappointed expression to my Dad, he said that we wouldn't enjoy the book if all the characters were satisfied. I argued that at least things should turn out well by the end, but I do see his point. Roddy Doyle pushes the ideas that we, as humans, have. What would happen if a human became really spiteful, but let's put it into a situation that people can relate to, or that at least feels realistic. This is what would happen, 'The Van'. But that doesn't make it any less painful to read when one of the characters slip up.


The book is written as well 'The Snapper', and 'The Commitments', but it's more serious and takes a long time developing feelings, mood, characters etc. It's nearly twice the length of the other two books. Though it has this dark, underlining feel through out the book, it can still make you laugh. There are still lovely moments and you forget that the characters have worries. As I mentioned before, it is really Jimmy Sr's take on the story, his ideas that are explored and the book it mostly displayed from his point of view, so you feel what he feels. When he's depressed, the reader emphasizes. When Jimmy laughs, you laugh. When he's angry, you too get angry, but sometimes it can be at him. 


Jimmy Sr is not perfect, but he's is a lovely character. He's a fine dad, not too rough, and a great granddad, very dedicated. After reading 'The Snapper' you begin to really like the character of Jimmy. He does have his faults, like that through out 'The Van' he keeps checking out other women when he has a perfectly lovely wife at home. He also has this recurring habit of wanting justice, his own little kind. He feels sometimes that he has been wronged and that people should apologize or at least realize what they've done to him. For example, in 'The Snapper', he begins to ignore Sharon, his daughter, so she might realize that her being pregnant has affected him too, and he thinks he's turned into the local laughing stock. Sharon quickly realizes this (the fact that he wont talk to her properly anymore) and so she threatens to move out. Jimmy Sr doesn't want to give up, but Sharon is stubborn, and he ends up begging her to stay. His little guilt-tripping acts always back-fire on him. 'The Van' slowly turns into that, Jimmy Sr's want for justice. But by the end, I'd forgotten what he actually wanted from it all, and I think the characters have too. 

Reading Response (holiday reading)

 Over the holidays I read first ‘The Snapper’, then ‘The Commitments’ (and am now reading ‘The Van’), all by Roddy Doyle, the first two being set around the same time and about the same family.

I finished ‘The Commitments’ yesterday. It was Roddy Doyle’s first book, and it’s about a bunch of young Irish people, in the 80’s, that try to start a band. A soul group. The main character is Jimmy Rabbitte, and he’s the one who decides to start the group in the first place, and he becomes the manager. He gets together his mates, Outspan and Derek (guitar and bass), then Declan or Deco for vocals, Dean on saxophone, Joey The Lips Fagen on trumpet, Billy on drums (then Mikah), James on piano, and Imelda, Bernie and Natalie as backing vocalists. Together, they are The Commitments.

The book is written in a very relaxed way and the language, though rough, it is natural, and above all, believable. It’s a fantastic style of writing, and is great to read. ‘The Commitments’ is very funny and enjoyable. The purpose of the writing isn’t to make you laugh, but it has a kind of everyday humour that the readers can relate too. I’m not sure how the working-class Irish readers found the book, maybe it was too close to home, but I personally loved the Irish feel of all the books. He develops it so well, and the way he portrays the story is original and inspiring. Roddy doesn’t go into too much depth about looks of characters or the settings, but the dialogue and the little descriptions he does give are enough for the reader to visualise and enjoy the story. Each character is original and vividly portrayed. They all have different ways they communicate and think, and way to do things, but they are all typical Irish folk.

‘The Snapper’ is set around the same time as the first book, (the main character, Sharon, is still twenty, same as in ‘The Commitments’) but the characters that are focused on in the first book are now in the background, and the background characters in the last book are now pushed to the front. It’s about Jimmy Jr’s (who was the main character in ‘The Commitments’) sister, Sharon, and how the family deals with her becoming pregnant. You get to know more about the Rabbittes, like Jimmy Sr, the father. One thing I love about the books is how they aren’t set in many places. In ‘The Snapper’, you only really get to see the Rabbitte household and the pub (even though the main character is pregnant. That’s another example of Irish culture; they drink a lot).

The first thing I noticed when I started to read ‘The Snapper’ was Roddy Doyle’s style of writing. He doesn’t write quotation marks when people speak. Here’s an example:

Sharon took her vodka and her jacket and her bag and went across to Jackie O’Keefe, Mary Curran and Yvonne Burgess, her friends; the gang.

-Hiyis, she said when she got there.

-Oh, howyeh, Sharon.

-Hiyeh, Sharon.

-Howyeh, Sharon.

-Hiyis, said Sharon.

He just puts in little dashes, which he also does when someone pauses in conversation. Doyle also doesn’t tend to explain who is speaking, which I also admire. I like it when authors don’t feel they have to spell everything out for you, and even though you don’t know for certain who’s talking, you can nearly always guess because he’s set up the characters so beautifully. The book is made up of conversations like this. Realistic but also funny. That’s why it’s so easy to read, and why you can imagine and bond with all the characters, and why you enjoy it. He also doesn’t have chapters, just sections divided by three asterisks.

*  *  *

Sometimes the sections are long, like a few pages, sometimes they’re only a few sentences long.

The books pull you in, forms vivid characters and images, makes you laugh, makes you sigh, makes you glad that you aren't them, makes you want to be in Ireland, spins you around, throws you out, then leaves you begging for more. They are very entertaining and after reading 'The Snapper' it made me want to go and write a story of my own. I have never read anything quite like it.

Photo from the movie 'The Commitments'

The Adventures of Tintin

Tintin in Tibet

…IN which Tintin goes to Tibet in search of his friend Chang (who he met in the book ‘The Blue Lotus’), all because of a dream he had.

My dad used to read me the Tintin books when we (being me and my sisters) were little, but I have to say, I still enjoy them now. I’m not sure if it’s the nostalgia, but I love the pictures, the characters, the story, and the comedy.

Tintin is a fantastic character. But really we know nothing about his personal life. He’s referred to as a boy, so he’s young, but he never ages. He’s a reporter, and finds himself having amazing adventures, but what about his family? Who are his parents? What is his last name? What I always wonder is what Herge would have done with him if he had the time. Would he have killed him off like Sherlock Holmes? Married him off maybe? Who knows. But when you read the books, none of those things matter, it’s all about the enticing tales and the fearless characters. And Tintin is a fantastic character. He always has the best interest at heart. The only reason he gets involved with the cases is because he wants people to be happy, and justice to be served. He is very strong morally. He will punch someone in the face if he thinks they are being cruel to someone who is innocent, but he would never kill anyone. Tintin is also quite mysterious because he has all these skills which wouldn’t be obvious if you looked at him. He can, for example, fly a plane. He talks to elephants in one story. He can fight three men all twice his size at once, and win. He can jump off trains. He is a crack shot with a rifle. The list goes on. Tintin is very kind, and his adventure in Tibet only enhances that. He goes to extreme measures to find Chang, when all evidence points to his friend being dead. But Tintin is determined, and ends up saving Chang’s life. There are so many times in the Tintin adventures where Tintin risks his own life to save Snowy’s (his dog). As I said, he is very moral.

The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes

I have just finished reading the Sherlock Holmes short stories, most recently ‘The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes’.  The book is full of fantastic tales of amazing adventures, all narrated by Sherlock’s forever-loyal friend, John Watson. John plays an extremely important part in Holmes’s stories. The adventures could have been written by Sherlock himself, but they would have had to have been filled with how the case was solved to the most minute of details, and would have focused on the strangest angles of the story, and there would have been no drama. With Watson narrating the stories, you get the tale as it was for him, there is the suspense he feels when Sherlock is hot on a trail, and there is the thrill when there is action.  Though John is always a step (or two) behind Sherlock, he still manages to capture the tales wonderfully (or more, Arthur Conan Doyle depicts them wonderfully).

Some of my favourite stories from ‘The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes’ are ‘The Yellow Face’, ‘The Resident Patient’ and ‘The Final Problem’.

‘The Resident Patient’ is a great example of Sherlock’s character. He does numerous things that seem completely out of his character to solve the case. These things upset John hugely, for he thinks his friend is losing his mind. Sherlock suspects two observers of a murder to actually be the murders, and are lying when they say they saw it happen from inside the house. The policeman involved in the case nearly tells the men the key to Sherlock’s discovery and so Sherlock has a fake stroke or seizure to draw the attention away from the conversation. John is distraught, thinking that his friend is on the brink of dying. When Sherlock ‘recovers’ he makes a major mistake when going over on of the men’s statements. He does this so the murderer will write down the correction and then Sherlock will know what his handwriting is like, but to John it looks like Sherlock is losing it and is extremely embarrassed for him. It actually pains him, and Sherlock sees this. Then, when upstairs in the suspect’s room Sherlock purposely bumps into a table near the door and smashes all of the contents onto the floor. Holmes takes the opportunity to slip his hand into a dressing gown on the door, grabbing a letter from the murderer to prove the culprits of the crime. But he also turns around and blames the accident on Watson, telling him to look where he was going. John is depressed, until the murders are in jail and Sherlock explains himself. It’s a great story, and a perfect example of Sherlock and his little ways of doing things. It also shows how he keeps Watson in the dark, until the great reveal at the end, which makes it more fun for the readers.

All the Sherlock Holmes stories are fantastic to read. I think one of the things that makes them so exciting is the mixture of characters presented in the stories, and how they deal with situations. There are hardly any characters in the adventures who are just plain bad. They have made mistakes, or lost there temper, or joined the wrong gang, or have just made a bad choice somewhere, and these variations of characters make them great stories. The characters, and the drama created by Watson's story telling and Sherlocks way of deducing. Like in 'The Yellow Face', they set up the new characters (who you find out aren't actually bad), then Sherlock goes to investigate, they discover the great secret behind it all, and through the whole story Watson is building up the tension for the final moment where everything is revealed. 

‘The Final Problem’ is a thrilling adventure, but also very sad. Watson starts off the story explaining that, “It is with a heavy heart that I take up my pen to write these the last words in which I shall ever record the singular gifts by which my friend Mr Sherlock Holmes was distinguished.”  Watson writes about how Holmes came to his house one day with a bleeding hand and his nerves in a wreck. Sherlock has met James Moriarty, and now his life is at stake. So the next day, Sherlock arranges John to meet him on a train which will take them out of England to Europe where they will stay for a week or so until it is safe to return. But Moriarty is Sherlock’s match, and when Holmes and Watson are taking a stroll to look at the Reichenbach Falls, and Watson is called away for an hour or two, the two friends never see each other again. John runs back, suspecting Moriarty for drawing him away in the first place, and he finds nothing of his friend, or his foe, except a letter explaining that Sherlock has disposed of the most evil man in London, or possibly the world, but at the price of his own life. Or so it would be if Conan Doyle didn’t subdue to popular demand, and bring Sherlock back after a few years. The story is still sad for me though, even if I know Sherlock didn’t leave for good. I tried to read it as if it was the last one, as Arthur Conan Doyle had originally written it, and as his character John thought it was.

The story is intense and exciting, but also depressing, for obvious reasons. I like it though because it really shows Watson and Holmes’s relationship, how Watson will do anything for his best friend, and Holmes will do anything to bring justice. It also shows that Sherlock doesn’t want his only friend hurt.  Holmes knows Watson is called away only so he is left alone with Moriarty, but he doesn’t tell John this because he doesn’t want him hurt, and so John doesn’t stop him from killing Moriarty at the risk of his own life.

I am also a big fan of the series ‘Sherlock’, the modern take on the famous stories, where Sherlock Holmes texts, and John Watson blogs. It is an amazing version, the writing is brilliant, the look is awesome, the music is thrilling, the adaptation of the stories are extremely clever, and they have the best actors for the parts. I was excited to read the scene in ‘The Final Problem’ when Sherlock is retelling John the meeting between himself and Professor James Moriarty. The way it is described is very dramatic, because the readers have never seen Sherlock scared before, but in his meeting with Moriarty, he is definitely this. He holds a gun at the Professor through his dressing gown pocket, and even when Moriarty points this out and Holmes sets it down on the table, and he recalls to Watson that, “He still smiled and blinked but there was something about his eyes which made me feel very glad that I had it there.” When the Holmes and Moriarty meet, not much needs to be said for they are both equals intellectually and know nearly every move each one will and has made.  I was excited because as I read I realised they quoted this scene in the modern adaption, in the third episode at the very end. Moriarty says “All that I have to say has already crossed your mind,” and Sherlock replies, “Then possibly my answer has crossed yours.” It is a very tense moment, and I think I was just as excited reading and watching it now as the readers were back in the 1800’s. That’s the great thing about the Sherlock Holmes stories, they were extremely popular back in the day (and quite up to date), and are still thrilling adventures for the modern audience today. The TV series, ‘Sherlock’, is releasing a new series next year in England. The three part mini series will re-tell three of Conan Doyle’s most well known Sherlock adventures, ‘A Scandal in Bohemia’ (with Irene Adler), The ‘Hound of the Baskerville’ (a thriller where Watson is left alone to discover the mystery behind a supernatural beast), and finally ‘The Final Problem’ (the story I just described with the Reichennach Falls).

What am I currently listening to?

Right now I am really into ‘Have One On Me’ by Joanna Newsom. She has this amazing voice that kind of sounds like Gin Wigmore, except it sings the most amazing ballads, and she bends it in such ways that I've never heard before. Joanna plays the harp, and I love her second album called ‘Ys’ (with Van Dyke Parks as producer and orchestra composer) where she plays it on all the songs. On this album though (or should I say albums, there are three discs in the pack), she plays a bit of harp and some piano, but of course mainly vocals. Newsom’s voice is amazing, and her harmonising is beautiful. She has this way of singing the lyrics that make you want to listen again and again. The songs (written by her) are both breathtaking, and catchy. I’m loving this album and I’ve only got through the first CD.

Here's a link to her preform her song 'Good Intentions Paving Company' from the album 'Have One On Me', and here is another link of her singing 'Emily' and playing the harp.

Term Two Reading Response

Frankenstein

By Mary Shelley

'Mary and Her Creation' by MirrorCradle on deviantart.

SYNOPSIS

‘Frankenstein’ is about a young man, Victor Frankenstein,  who discovers the how to give life to the inanimate, but it goes terribly wrong.

The book starts with some letters from a man named Robert Walton, who is writing to his sister from his ship on a voyage to the Arctic Wastes. He soon explains that he has come across this strange man, Victor Frankenstein from Switzerland, on the icecaps. He then writes down Victor’s amazing story of love, hate, life, and despair.

Victor was a happy child, with a love for life. But that wasn’t enough, he wanted to create life. So he went to University, created a huge person of old body parts, and animated it. Driven crazy by what he has done, he falls ill, and the creature escapes. Over the course of the book you discover the creatures story as well as Victors. It’s a very depressing, but gripping tale of revenge, written by the genius Mary Shelley, nee Wollsencraft Godwin, when she was eighteen. (There is a bit more to the story then that, but that’s a very condensed version).

CHARACTERS

Victor Frankenstein

Victor is very intelligent, and from a young age was interested in science and what makes life. He is intense, and if an idea comes to his mind, he will not let it go. That is where all his mistakes stem from actually.

You find out that, while at University, Victor discovers how to animate the dead, or how to create (with scalpels and organs), life. At the time, he didn’t think of consequences at all. He didn’t even consider what he would do with the creature if it did come to life, he could only see the goal of being the first to make that great discovery. So when the creature does wake up, and move, and groan, Victor goes into a fever and becomes delusional and very, very ill. He’s dramatic in all his emotions. When he feels love, it’s deep and pure, and it’s felt with all his heart, and same with hate.

For most of the book it’s told from Victor’s point of view (like he’s telling his tale to Robert), so his thoughts dominate, and are very strong. You know he feels depressed about what he’s done, and though you don’t think it was right that he should of created the creature, you feel for Victor as well, because he feels so bad, he feels so guilty. The fact that he creates the creature in the first place, without considering consequences is proof that he doesn’t quite think things through though. He also thinks that the creature wants to kill him near the end, and so he is reckless and doesn’t care about death compared with living with the creature also. But the creature said he was going to destroy Victor’s life, and so kills all his loved ones, not Victor. That’s what really destroys him by the end. Victors character is interesting because though he is so depressed and that can become tiring at times when it’s from the depressed character’s point of view, he is still a strong character that you can relate to, so you carry on reading, and you don’t get bored. And with out Victor’s mistakes, there would be no book, so you want to see his journey through those mistakes, whatever it takes.

 A cool thing I found out about the book ‘Frankenstein’, it’s also called ‘The Modern Prometheus’. Prometheus was a Greek Titan who created human beings, so the title has a lot of meaning behind it, seeing Victor creates life. Prometheus was also tied to a rock as punishment for trying to trick Zeus, and everyday and eagle would come and eat out his liver. In a way, I think it’s kind of like that for Victor, especially near the end of the book where the creature keeps torturing him even though he’s down already. I also like that Mary thought of Victor as modern. Of course she would.

‘The Creature’

The creature was born with a pure heart, I definitely think. He had a love for life, and all he ever wanted was to be accepted. But because of his hideous looks, everyone he approached ran in fear. He was so lovely and kind, but the repetitive rejection was too much, and it drove the creature to punish Victor instead of talking about it. The creature, though murdering to hurt Victor, was still logical about it, and did it all for a reason (though of course nothing justifies murder). For example, he killed Victor’s brother because he knew that would bring Victor looking for him. Then he framed someone else for the murder.

The character of the creature is extremely interesting, like does he have a soul? Does that even matter? Should he have equal rights? Was he pure from the start, or was he destined to kill and hurt? Did he inherit Victor’s intense emotions? Could he have reasoned with Victor? And would he have left and had been happy if Victor had animated his wife?* Only some of these can have answers, and even them are matters of opinion and perception.

There is definitely an interesting link between Victor and the creature. Intentional or not they have many similarities such as they both have a love for life, they both have their way with words, they don’t think of consequences, they have tempers, both single minded and obsessive, powered by revenge at the end, and many more. I don’t know if the creature actually inherited these features from his creator, or it’s just symbolic. Interesting.

Another interesting thing about the creature is the fact he has no name. Frankenstein only ever refers to him as wretch, demon, vile… thing. Me and my sister became partial to calling him Adam, after Adam and Eve, because the creature takes a liking to Adam in a play of ‘Frankenstein’**, where he quotes ‘Paradise Lost’. I then later discovered Mary Shelley herself referred to him as Adam, I was on the same wave-length as a woman 200 years ago! This made me ridiculously happy.

Elizabeth Lavenza

…Is a strong woman, and I think it’s a shame she had to be locked up in a house all her life, looking after others. But that was the norm back then. Now I think Elizabeth would be a lawyer, or a doctor, or something strong like that. It's interesting Mary didn’t make her more strong, seeing I think Mary is a wonderful woman (Mary was a feminist), but I suppose it’s the situation she put Elizabeth in. She feels she must look after her family, and she is also the love interest, so she has to be slightly pathetic and/or weak.

MY RESPONSE

I think ‘Frankenstein’ is a fantastic book. It’s grim and depressing, but the characters are so that you feel for all of them, and the descriptions are wonderful, you get lost in that world. It is also so well written that you feel the narrator’s feelings. You feel their sadness, anger or love for life.

It’s very refreshing to read ‘Frankenstein’, and also very interesting to ponder over because so many philosophical questions are explored. It’s refreshing because the characters are so strong, but also because there is a character of the creature in the book, who is experiencing life for the first time, but learns very fast, so you see the world through his eyes.

But back to the philosophical questions. I also like that though God is there in a sense, and Heaven and Hell plays a part for the characters that live when their loved ones die, it's not forced upon the reader, when it easily could have been.

I also like ‘Frankenstein’ because it was written by a woman in the early 1800’s. How awesome is that? A women writing about a man who defies God and digs up dead people. I didn’t realize that it was written by a woman when I first wanted to read it, so it made it all the more cooler when I found out it was. She wrote it because when she was in Geneva (where the book is set actually), she and her friends had been telling ghost stories to entertain each other, and they made a deal to write one of their own, something about a supernatural occurrence. Her friends never got round to writing theirs, but hers became hugely popular, and many say it was the start of science fiction. The actual idea of the story apparently came from a dream she had, about a scientist who galvanises a corpse, but it all goes terribly wrong. It was a favourite topic between Mary and her friends, the idea of galvanism. I also feel there is a subtle message about technology in the book, like she’s warning us about technology, and what research and pointless experimenting could lead to, which relates to the other text I read this term ‘The Adoration of Jenna Fox’. ‘Frankenstein’ should definitely put people off trying to create people other than having babies, Victor even goes mental at Robert at one point when asked how he made the creature, what his secret was to sparking life. He says that he wont let anyone make that mistake again, which is a clever because it leaves that mystery to the reader’s imagination.

Another strong theme in the book is ‘an eye for an eye’, which, as this book tells you, doesn’t really work, it just makes everyone sad.  

STYLE

The book is written from many peoples point of view, mainly three. There is Robert, who is writing to his sister, then recording Victor’s tale. Then Victor, while telling his story, talks about what the creature told him, which is the creature’s tale. Then there are letters Victor received during his life, and all of this is recorded by Robert. This style of writing is interesting because it seems unnecessarily complicated, but it makes sense while you read. Though sometimes that style does annoy me, Arthur Conan Doyle does it too, where Watson is writing about a man who told them what his father said to him about what he had said, word for word, to another man. I’m sure that could have been condensed. But this was entertainment in those days! It’s like a flashback in a soap opera or a movie. And ‘Frankenstein’ was written to be a tale told by the fireside, so by having it constantly in first person adds to the spookiness of it all, which is fantastic. If it’s like ‘this is what the creature actually said’, it makes it all the more deep and intriguing, and also makes it more realistic, like it was recent history. It’s just a different way of writing, and I also find it interesting why we don’t write like that anymore… I guess it’s because we feel movies do it for us.

---

* The creature asks Victor to create him a wife, because he is lonely. But Victor destroys her at the last moment, fearing she would be evil and that they would continue to make his life a living hell.

** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FEakgJj-uA