The Angel’s Game by Carlos Ruiz Zafon.
Just now out in paperback, The Angel’s Game was quite possibly my favorite book of 2009. I loved loved LOVED Shadow of the Wind because it had everything I like in a novel: history, romance, intrigue, fantasy all rolled into one. The Angel’s Game had all that again and in a more concise package. (Even though I loved Shadow of the Wind, I did think it got a little tubby in the middle and could have used an editor with a hacksaw there.)
The Angel’s Game follows a young Barcelona writer with no family, David Marti´n, who writes pulp fiction for a pair of deliciously crooked editors. The opening paragraph:
“A writer never forgets the first time he accepted a few coins or a word of praise in exchange for a story. He will never forget the sweet poison of vanity in his blood and the belief that, if he succeeds in not letting anyone discover his lack of talent, the dream of literature will provide him with a roof over his head, a hot meal at the end of the day, and what he covets the most: his name printed on a miserable piece of paper that will surely outlive him. A writer is condemned to remember that moment, because from then on he is doomed and his soul has a price.”
He writes because he needs to earn a living, because he is vain, because he wants to be immortal – as he knows writers can be. His editors exploit his fear and downplay his talent (I loved them as villains), until one day he is contacted by a mysterious publisher who wants to have him write The Book that will make him immortal.
The Angel’s Game explores themes of obsessive love, vanity, fear, religion (or the lack thereof), reality and fantasy, and the power of story – all hot buttons for me (well, maybe not the obsessive love part). Woven within are a mystery, characters both funny and tragic, the Cemetery of Forgotten Books and an obvious color palette.
This is going to be a TERRIFIC book club book. And, because the ending is ambiguous (a source of frustration for some readers), book clubs will be talking (arguing?) beyond the meeting time. Don’t miss it!
-Janet
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR STARTS TALKING TO YOU? Notes on Hilary Rhodes' Wine @ 5 lecture March 25 2010. Or, Writing, Craft, What Goes on in an Author's Head, and Talking Dead Guys.
Hilary is the author of The Aetheling's Bride, an historical fiction set beginning 2 weeks after the Battle of Hastings in England, 1066, and in Oxford in 1987. It follows 2 women: Aislinn, a Saxon commoner swept up in William the Conqueror's victorious march to London, and the following 40 years under William; and Selma, an American graduate student at Oxford trying to locate and study the "Aethelinga" manuscript, which is Aislinn's story. Both women are trying to come to terms with violent acts in their lives. Despite being separated by 9 centuries, they have surprisingly similar lessons to learn.
"Where to start the story? In Oxford, of course. And how I planned for 3 years to get there and how I thought I had it all figured out when I did.
"So I joined the Wadham tutoring program (for underprivileged students), and it's off to Tower Hamlets (London) I go. To talk about the Normans, and to get the kids to tell stories. 'Harold tells you a secret. What is it?' or 'William gives you a gift. What is it?'
"The kids were not so into it. William would be surprised to know he bequeathed any number of plasma TVs. But they had fun.
"On the way back to Oxford, waiting in Victoria Station for the bus, the plot bunny sidles into my head. 'Hey,' it says, 'YOU like to write stories.' And then IT happens. 4 characters introduce themselves, right then. And one of them was William himself. That's the short version.
"NOW WHAT?
"Sit in the Oxford Tube. Heinous traffic (first time ever I was grateful for that). Have a good but rather vague idea of the first two parts by the time I concluded this bus ride. Go inside and write the first five pages. Nothing out of the ordinary happens. I even think it's safe to go back to this other project I've been working on.
"A few days later, however, I go back. That's the end of me. I've got this whopper of a story on my hands and a VERY insistent cast of characters.
"Permit a diversion on characters. One way to build them: by planning them out. I myself have done this before. You know, forms that ask you to think up how your character walks and what was that traumatic thing that happened to her with a bratwurst that is driving her psychological arc. It is a fine and perfectly acceptable way to do character, especially if you're the sort of person that needs outlines and organization. Nothing wrong with that.
"Or what you can do, once you've stepped on a live wire, is to meet them. Often it's not going to take very long. At all.
"If you've been writing for very long, you've probably had the experience of your characters coming alive, which makes every other non-writer tell you that you're crazy and it's actually just you. Which it's not, and they don't entirely get. So the problem was, ALL of mine did. It was like chasing a barrel of monkeys. Add lively (read 'real') characters, cross that with historical accuracy and research, and you have a steeplechase on your hands.
"Add into the hunt trying to figure out whose history to believe, especially when using primary sources. Medieval chroniclers were not big on objectivity: they wanted to establish their side of the story. Thus, who did what and who was promised what (did Edward the Confessor promise William the throne upon his death? Or Harold Godwinson? Or both? Or neither?) will vary considerably upon who you read. Norman chroniclers insist on William's legitimacy and say Harold was a turd. English ones were vice versa. Their personal opinions become the history they're recording. William of Malmesbury was fairly good, but very pro-Norman and had moments of ridiculousness, e.g. Henry (William's son) was a saint and very pure (ignoring the 20+ bastards he sired). Then again, he WAS a monk. And then some things go very far back, as in carping about taxes! Eadmer was also decent, but I had to remember that whatever they didn't know, they filled in. They wrote whole conversations! Gee, kinda like writing a novel!
"It does mean that if you're writing your own story, you have to make choices about what version you want to tell. I decided to take a middle ground. Both Harold and William were complicated, fascinating men. It was kind of criminal to cartoonize them and make them one-dimensional.
"For example, William. So intelligent, so brave, so gifted, but pretty much zero empathy and does a lot of things that by our standards are incredibly cruel and brutal. That doesn't mean he's a 'bad guy'. He has both sides (his childhood makes you see why he is how he is). You have to look at all the characters in whole, not just isolated actions.
Hilary is the author of The Aetheling's Bride, an historical fiction set beginning 2 weeks after the Battle of Hastings in England, 1066, and in Oxford in 1987. It follows 2 women: Aislinn, a Saxon commoner swept up in William the Conqueror's victorious march to London, and the following 40 years under William; and Selma, an American graduate student at Oxford trying to locate and study the "Aethelinga" manuscript, which is Aislinn's story. Both women are trying to come to terms with violent acts in their lives. Despite being separated by 9 centuries, they have surprisingly similar lessons to learn.
"Where to start the story? In Oxford, of course. And how I planned for 3 years to get there and how I thought I had it all figured out when I did.
"So I joined the Wadham tutoring program (for underprivileged students), and it's off to Tower Hamlets (London) I go. To talk about the Normans, and to get the kids to tell stories. 'Harold tells you a secret. What is it?' or 'William gives you a gift. What is it?'
"The kids were not so into it. William would be surprised to know he bequeathed any number of plasma TVs. But they had fun.
"On the way back to Oxford, waiting in Victoria Station for the bus, the plot bunny sidles into my head. 'Hey,' it says, 'YOU like to write stories.' And then IT happens. 4 characters introduce themselves, right then. And one of them was William himself. That's the short version.
"NOW WHAT?
"Sit in the Oxford Tube. Heinous traffic (first time ever I was grateful for that). Have a good but rather vague idea of the first two parts by the time I concluded this bus ride. Go inside and write the first five pages. Nothing out of the ordinary happens. I even think it's safe to go back to this other project I've been working on.
"A few days later, however, I go back. That's the end of me. I've got this whopper of a story on my hands and a VERY insistent cast of characters.
"Permit a diversion on characters. One way to build them: by planning them out. I myself have done this before. You know, forms that ask you to think up how your character walks and what was that traumatic thing that happened to her with a bratwurst that is driving her psychological arc. It is a fine and perfectly acceptable way to do character, especially if you're the sort of person that needs outlines and organization. Nothing wrong with that.
"Or what you can do, once you've stepped on a live wire, is to meet them. Often it's not going to take very long. At all.
"If you've been writing for very long, you've probably had the experience of your characters coming alive, which makes every other non-writer tell you that you're crazy and it's actually just you. Which it's not, and they don't entirely get. So the problem was, ALL of mine did. It was like chasing a barrel of monkeys. Add lively (read 'real') characters, cross that with historical accuracy and research, and you have a steeplechase on your hands.
"Add into the hunt trying to figure out whose history to believe, especially when using primary sources. Medieval chroniclers were not big on objectivity: they wanted to establish their side of the story. Thus, who did what and who was promised what (did Edward the Confessor promise William the throne upon his death? Or Harold Godwinson? Or both? Or neither?) will vary considerably upon who you read. Norman chroniclers insist on William's legitimacy and say Harold was a turd. English ones were vice versa. Their personal opinions become the history they're recording. William of Malmesbury was fairly good, but very pro-Norman and had moments of ridiculousness, e.g. Henry (William's son) was a saint and very pure (ignoring the 20+ bastards he sired). Then again, he WAS a monk. And then some things go very far back, as in carping about taxes! Eadmer was also decent, but I had to remember that whatever they didn't know, they filled in. They wrote whole conversations! Gee, kinda like writing a novel!
"It does mean that if you're writing your own story, you have to make choices about what version you want to tell. I decided to take a middle ground. Both Harold and William were complicated, fascinating men. It was kind of criminal to cartoonize them and make them one-dimensional.
"For example, William. So intelligent, so brave, so gifted, but pretty much zero empathy and does a lot of things that by our standards are incredibly cruel and brutal. That doesn't mean he's a 'bad guy'. He has both sides (his childhood makes you see why he is how he is). You have to look at all the characters in whole, not just isolated actions.
"So then, we have the Norman Conquest. Whoof! Big change. I'm very resistant to the idea that the only people who existed are the ones who got written about. For that time period, it's monks doing all the writing. They write about powerful men, rarely about women. For example, Edith of Wessex was a queen, well educated, and powerful in her own right; but as soon as her husband the king died, she totally drops out of the chronicles. Also, the monks will kill your reputation if you piss them off, e.g. Rufus, who became king when William died. The church HATED him (and the chronicles reflect that).
So, who else is affected? The less powerful. My narrator is a Saxon, common-born woman. She doesn't stay there, but that's how she starts out. She would never have been mentioned in the chronicles. However, that doesn't mean someone like her didn't or couldn't have existed. I don't hesitate to use plausible fictional characters. Sometimes they will introduce themselves as forcibly as the historical ones. I figure they have a good reason to be there, too, and sign them up.
More coming on what it's like to be taken over by Talking Dead Guys!
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Helen's New Best Favorite
Lost City of Z by David Grann
What a great adventure tale! This non-fiction thriller is not for the faint of heart. Grann introduces the reader to British explorer Percy Harrison Fawcett who achieved world wide acclaim as an explorer of the Amazon. With graphic detail Grann explores Fawcett's obsession with the Amazon. He starts with Fawcett's military life through his last expedition taken with his son where they disappeared. Since then hundreds of other explorers have followed Fawcett's trail including the author. This is a riveting, well-researched introduction to Percy Harrison Fawcett (does Indiana Jones ring any bells?). Run get this book...now! You won't be sorry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
