Saturday, February 16, 2008

The Architects Are Here


When I first started reading Michael Winter's novel The Architects Are Here I kind of felt like a fish out of water. Or like a child wading out into an unfamiliar pool not knowing whether they will float or drown in the murky depths. I must confess I’m a horror lover threw to the bone and as I read the short summery on the inside cover I doubted that I would enjoy it. As a horror fan I like stories with thrills and suspence, most conventional novels lack either. However after the first paragraph it became clear this was more than a simple story of one mans life.
In fact the novel cares very little for the narrators life, sure it revolves around him but it is focused on the people he cares about. It works on the same level as the novel A Separate Peace. It’s all about the narrator looking back on his life and how it defined who he is but at the same time he is never really the focus. It is narrated by the character Gabriel, who tells his life’s story but focuses on his friend David and his lover Nell. The first lines of the novel make it clear that David is the focus of the piece and that to properly tell the story he must also talk about Nell. One of the more unique aspects to this style are the moments were Gabriel is almost omniscient. He seems to know the history of everyone he meets, especially David and Nell. It would be hard to summarise a novel like this because of the way it is broken up. It goes through different stages of life. Gabriel talks about growing up in Corner Brook Newfoundland, going to collage, Moving to Toronto and finally coming full circle and returning to Corner Brook. Each part seems like it’s own separate story, structurally, each ending in a climax and a falling point before moving on. But they all serve to develop the characters and in the end draw the plot and all the characters together.
This form of narration and the way Winter uses symbolic imagery to enforce the character building is brilliant, mostly. The fact that the narrator is not the focus may catch some readers off guard. They may begin to believe the narrator is god or a ghost; interacting with the characters but invisible to the reader. You know very little about him for the first bit of the novel and on a personal not I never even learned his name until page 78. Looking back I don’t even think it was mentioned until then. After that point you learn more about him but he is still motivated entirely by the rest of the cast. He is like an everyman character; he takes our seat in this adventure. For people who like to see the story through the eyes of the protagonist or the catalyst this may be a problem. The other problem lies with the narration itself. At time I was bothered by the overwhelming amount of knowledge Gabe had on the other characters. At times the he even knows what there thoughts and emotions are. Personally I didn’t mind this but it will be a problem for some people. There are also inexplicable segways and view sifts. Sometimes in mid conversation he will break off describing a back-story then at the end sift back into the conversation, it’s a bit distracting. There is also one scene where the view briefly swifts from first person to third person and the narrator starts referring to himself as Gabe other then I or me. I’m sure it had some stylistic relevance, probably showing that for a moment he wasn’t himself. However, clever or not it was a huge distraction that had me stumped. I kept rereading thinking I had missed something or was confused.
The novel is gritty which may or may not be a plus for you. As such I’m putting the grittiness on the fence. It is neither a strong point nor a weak one. There are moments where descriptions are very grizzly and others that are almost perverse but it fits with the story. This is not a feel good story, conflicts abound and so does tragedy. This fits the realistic tone of the novel and makes you feel like this story could really happen. Aside from a few events that seem farfetched, but are necessary to move the plot, the story keeps a very realistic feel. All the more far fetched moment are fine as well because they fit symbolically and only seem out of place because all these terrible things are happening to the same people.
Now for the good bits, I would say everything else and that would work because it’s the truth. The writing is smooth and clever. It features loads of symbolic imagery some of which is just stunning. The characters are amazingly deep and feel like real people. Each one has their own personal demons and fancies, even the small ones. And there isn’t a truly stock character in sight. All of the fore-mentioned points come together and lend to the complex web that is the story. A web that seems to shine with little drops of brilliance that it’s captured like dew in the morning air. Fancy metaphors aside, overall the novel is masterfully crafted with only a few minor scratches marking its well-polished construction.
This is defiantly an A book. With only small problems keeping it from an A+. It’s made me consider going out and picking up more of Winter’s work which is impressive. The only author I’ve read serially is Steven King and that’s due to my previously mentioned love of horror. So it has done the impossible and made me want to read books that have nothing to do with ghosts or zombies (a daunting task to say the least). With that in mind, I give it full recommendation to anyone who loves a good coming of age story, or for that matter anyone who loves literature.

Friday, February 8, 2008

Double Review Bonnanza: White Noise 2 VS They




Well this may make up for the delay on my review for "The Village"...or it may not. I don't care. This is a new thing I'm going to try for a while, I'm going to take new(ish) films and compare them to classics. My first comparison review will be on "White Noise 2" and "They". One is good and one is, well...new. So lets get to it.

So I'll start with "White Noise 2" because it new and not that good. Keep in mind I liked the first one. I thought it was cool because it was a new idea; the whole evp thing was an original concept that led to some interesting scenes. Apparently when making the sequel the writers watched the original then said "fuck all this sciencey crap, lets do us up a good old fashioned religious thriller. cause that's original and jebus is awsome", retarded ideas aside they took an original idea and turned it into a genaric thriller with a faith aspect. Most of it makes little sense and what little evp elements there are seem tacked on. If you know anything about the bible you'll see the plot twists coming a mile away an if you don't see them coming you won't be impressed any way. There is one point where it seems like it may become original again but they fail to see it through and the ending is really cliche and will have you saying what the fuck just happened, it's almost good then it gets ruined by the whole white light sub theme. Arg, it gets a D+ watchable but inferiour to it's prediccesor.

And now for the movie "They" which involves night terrors and things that hide in your closet( insert overly used Michael Jackson joke here...I'm above this...). It works on the idea that children are afraid of the dark because there are actually things that thrive within it. The things of nightmares that remain shrouded in the shadows unable to enter the light. For the most part this works well because up until the end you never get a good look at the creatures, which leaves you wanting more and the use of darkness is top notch. The only faults to the movie is a poorly conceived ending and the acting is a little off at times. Over all a solid B and well worth a look for horror buffs.

So now comes the comparison part of the review is a segment called...

Nightmares top 3 comparisons...(fuck original titles)

#3 Usage of light. "They" nails darkness perfectly allowing you to see but not to be able to make out what you're looking at. That way it can scare you but you can't get used to it. As for "White Noise 2"... there are actually scenes where the lighting is so bright it actually hurt my eyes. I watch horror movie in the dark and at times they really had the high beams on and it got really annoying and you could also see every ghost way too clearly.

#2 Usage of "otherworldly" imagery. "They" has a few scenes where you get a glimpse of the other dark world but you never get a good look at it...it's dark (lol). But you get the impression that it's writhing which is cool. In "White Noise 2" (from now on refered to as WN2) there is one of thoughs near death experiences where the main character flies (litteraly) out of his body and into a tunnel of light (go into the light kind of garbage). I remember half way through this scene my friend turned to me and said "OK man the movie is ruined now", it's at the start of the movie.

#1 Usage of horror! Here we go the most important part. "They" works well because of the aforementioned darkness. You don't know what you saw and they only focus on it for a second then it's gone the scare only lasts long enough to make you jump. In "WN2" they have a bad habit of double-taking shots. They do a scare (some aren't bad either) then they focus on the main characters reaction, then they make the horrible move of looking back at the ghost again. There are 2 things bad about this: 1 it allows us to see the ghost better and we can no longer be scared of it because we know what it is, 2 we get to look at it again and notice it looks like shit because of the movies low budget and lack of originality.

So in conclusion don't bother with "WN2" and if you haven't yet watch "They" you may really enjoy it.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Silas Marner


OK, I know I'm a little late on this one but hey at least I'm still doing it....Silas Marner is actually a great book. This must sound weird since I didn't enjoy the last "Classic" I read but this one is actually quite good. I really liked it. The basic plot is entertaining enough with some really touching moments and some really great character development but the main draw is the layered social commentary. It involves both religion and class structures showing the hipocrisy in both, something I'm totally into. If you like classical literature and religious dabate you should really dig this book. It gets an A because it manages to make a point without becoming stale and it does so without coming right out with it's message. I like a story that allows me to think without holding my hand...You hear that allegory, your not clever. Go die!

( for all you lit buffs out there I'm talking everyman allegory not Inferno allegory, some allegory is good...most sucks though)