Reviews and Comments

So here’s the story: Will Navidson and his family move into a house. Previously unseen doors mysteriously appear. Will and friends explore the labyrinthine rooms leading from these doors, and film their experiences. Mayhem and death ensue.

Navidson’s film generates much examination (cinematic critiques of the film itself, theories as to the physics of doors and rooms suddenly appearing, psychological studies of the characters, etc.). A character named Zampano (seemingly unknown to Navidson) prepares his own notes on the film and its subsequent analyses but dies before he is unable to complete the project. Johnny Truant takes Zampano’s notes and compiles them into a manuscript. The manuscript is then edited (we know this because of recurring “editor’s notes”). The result is layers upon layers of stories and by the end we are not sure any of it is real. Fairly early on, and again near the end of the book, Truant admits to making things up. Metafiction, anyone?

I hope Mark Danielewski had fun with some of his smug construction techniques: certain words and passages printed in color, footnoted footnotes (where have I seen that before?), occasional footnotes that use odd characters rather than Arabic numerals (evidently we are supposed to use photographs in the book to decode these footnotes but I didn’t want to bother); an index that includes meaningless words (like “something” and “back”); initial letters of lists that spell out things including the author’s name.

Truant frequently interjects his own story via footnotes. He’s a mess. His life centers around drugs, sex, and the repercussions of abandonment and early childhood abuse—or not? Remember, he’s told us he lies.

There are no dimensional female characters. Navidson’s partner, Karen, gives us capital-D-Denial. Truant interacts with hookers and one night stands. Truant’s also got mother issues. Through a series of letters, we learn that Truant’s mother spent years in a mental health facility. (In another trick of construction, we get to decode one of her letters.)

The book’s weaknesses are redeemed by chapters 9 and 20. Here Danielewski has constructed the verbal equivalent of the labyrinth that Navidson is exploring. The book uses footnotes, page layout, color, and typography to evoke dead ends, backtracking, and a feeling of disorientation. Great fun to read the book while turning it sideways, flipping pages backwards, jumping forward or backward to find the referenced footnote—a truly disorienting, unique reading experience.

Of course it's heartbreaking that Henrietta Lacks's descendants must do without medical insurance while Henrietta's cells provide financial benefits to pharmaceutical companies. Rebecca Skloot concludes the book with a really good (if scholarly) analysis of the issues regarding tissue "donation" and medical research.

The story of the Lacks family was compelling; the historical record of the scientists and medical personnel was rather dry. In the end, I felt like there were too many competing storylines in this book to really make me feel involved with all of them.

Of course it's heartbreaking that Henrietta Lacks's descendants must do without medical insurance while Henrietta's cells provide financial benefits to pharmaceutical companies. Rebecca Skloot concludes the book with a really good (if scholarly) analysis of the issues regarding tissue "donation" and medical research.

The story of the Lacks family was compelling; the historical record of the scientists and medical personnel was rather dry. In the end, I felt like there were too many competing storylines in this book to really make me feel involved with all of them.

Stylistically similar to Cloud Atlas but more readable. Both books give us separate stories told in different voices. However, Ghostwritten provides more obvious links between the stories and a spectacular wrap-up.

OK, it's gimmmicky. I still really really like David Mitchell.

Stylistically similar to Cloud Atlas but more readable. Both books give us separate stories told in different voices. However, Ghostwritten provides more obvious links between the stories and a spectacular wrap-up.

OK, it's gimmmicky. I still really really like David Mitchell.

OK, who in the "David Mitchell" fan club is ready to read this one?

Enjoyed it lots. The setting is Nagasaki, Japan, primarily during the years 1799-1800. The scope ranges from the massive (nation building, global trade, political power struggles) to minute (a gnarled old herbalist living alone on the side of a mountain). We get a kaleidoscope of characters, and just about all of them have something to hide, some deal to be struck, some advantage to be taken.

It's historical fiction; it's a story of faith; it's a romance; it's an adventure. Recommended.

OK, who in the "David Mitchell" fan club is ready to read this one?

Enjoyed it lots. The setting is Nagasaki, Japan, primarily during the years 1799-1800. The scope ranges from the massive (nation building, global trade, political power struggles) to minute (a gnarled old herbalist living alone on the side of a mountain). We get a kaleidoscope of characters, and just about all of them have something to hide, some deal to be struck, some advantage to be taken.

It's historical fiction; it's a story of faith; it's a romance; it's an adventure. Recommended.

Nicely produced quarterly journal...looking forward to seeing what future issues hold.

Weakest element was the fiction by Jun'ichiro Tanizaki. Best was the lead story, Things Were Eaten, an account of slurping ramen at various shops in Japan.

Nicely produced quarterly journal...looking forward to seeing what future issues hold.

Weakest element was the fiction by Jun'ichiro Tanizaki. Best was the lead story, Things Were Eaten, an account of slurping ramen at various shops in Japan.

Author Stacy Schiff tells us right off the bat that an accurate, complete biography of Cleopatra is just about impossible because of the lack of contemporary documentary evidence. So, a lot of this book is a compare-and-contrast of other historians' viewpoints (many of which are in the vein of "let's undercut the woman, the powerful, wealthy ruler, and paint her as a sexual conniver" - a huge disservice to Caesar and Mark Antony). For too long, history has been controlled by and told by men, but Cleopatra forces us to see otherwise.

The kingdom of Egypt at the beginning of Cleopatra's reign was an wealthy, educated, and generally prosperous land. The city of Alexandria seemed to have surpassed Rome in terms of cultural development. Egypt's riches (spices, gemstones, gold, warships) naturally drew quarreling (and perpetually broke) Roman leaders.

As Schiff points out, Cleopatra must have realized it was in her -- and her kingdom's -- best interests to make strategic alliances, and achieve the backing rather than the enmity of Rome. The Ptolemy family history was full of fratricide (and sororicide), so Cleopatra had no illusions about the costs of maintaining power.

It's not an overstatement to say that her tragic death changed Roman history. Octavian (Augustus), who vanquished Mark Antony and Cleopatra to become the first emperor of the Roman Empire, could not have attained his many achievements without the riches he amassed from Egypt.

This book is a historical biography, and not biographical fiction. (For the latter, I recommend [b:The Memoirs of Cleopatra|8171985|The Memoirs of Cleopatra|Margaret George|http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MlCvfOdEL.SL75.jpg|12852].)