skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Most people remember the shocking kidnap of Natascha Kampusch and her eventual escape of her attacker and return into the world in 1996. Kampusch, now a television presenter, has written a book about her experiences - the terror and fear she experienced as a captive of Wolfgang Prikopil who jumped under a train soon after her escape.
It is clear from the writing in this book that Kampusch received help from therapists to understand her experiences, both as an unhappy small child prior to her kidnapping, and as a victim and survivor of the man who subjected her to eight years in captivity. Kampusch is able to write clearly about her experiences and she reflects on them in a useful way throughout the book that I think is extremely admirable. Not many people would be able to go through what she did and come out the other side, but Kampusch has come to understand and reflect on her experiences and her ultimate survival to the benefit of herself and others. As well as this, she rejects the label of Stockholm Syndrome that was imposed on her after she escaped saying it denied her autonomy and reinforced her status as the victim. She was also able to objectively look at the media response which contributed to a form of revictimisation.
This book also highlights the police processes which took place after her capture and it is clear that from the beginning there were many mistakes made. Important leads were also not followed up in the process of the investigation and several opportunities to follow up Prikopil ultimately failed. It seems like the police expected some sort of obvious monster and the failure to find this monster they sought meant they did not take good tips seriously. Then again this was probably an unheard of case at the time and this story could contribute to police efforts in Austria in the future.
Overall this was an absolutely amazing book. Kampusch is an impressive women who is able to recount her experiences with understanding far beyond her years. I would recommend it to all.
NB: This book is known as both Anna Karenin and Anna Karenina. Both are correct in different dialects of the Russian language
This book tells the story of not only its title character, but also a series of other people in the same society as her. Tolstoy has managed to brilliantly contrast the eccentricities of two very different relationships that are tied together through acquaintance. Anna Karenina leaves her quiet relationship to seek a more tumultuous one with someone she actually loves, Count Vronsky. Anna comes across from the beginning as risk-taker who is ready to do anything spontaneous in order to receive pleasure from life. This makes her one of the more exciting characters, but also eventually leads to her demise. Kitty, who was originally Vronsky's love interest suffers sickness when he runs off with Anna. Levin whose dream is to settle down on his farm and lead a quiet life. Both Kitty's and Levin's development lead to another romance, one less spontaneous and as it turns out more steady. Levin is by far the most explored character and his words as well as actions clearly come across throughout the book.
The book also contains interesting symbolism - trains are a central part of the book. As well as this, it also explores the original discontent experienced by workers in Tolstoy's time that eventually led to the revolution. So not only does this book contain interesting personal stories, but does so with the background of pre-revolution Russia. This is a book I will definitely have to reread as the plotlines are intricate. It touches on several important social issues as well including a woman's freedom and/or reliance on a husband and the above-mentioned protests that led eventually to revolution.
I would recommend this book to anyone, it's not the easiest read - Russian novels never are, but it's well worth it for the wealth within the pages and between the lines.
This book became more popular after it was turned into a movie starring Kate Winslet and Ralph Fiennes. It tells the story of a 15-year-old boy called Michael who begins an affair with a train conductor in her 30s. This relationship is to change the course of Michael's philosophy on life and leads him to have unmeaningful relationships and a fear of abandonment for the rest of his life. I've never seen the movie, so I can't draw any comparisons between the book and the movie. I will say though, that the main reason why the movie is not as good most of the time is that books have so much more scope to go in depth. Despite this - and I can't be sure if this is a translation issue or something else - the characters in this book are never explored in much depth. All that we get from Michael is more of the same - his personality doesn't seem to develop throughout the book much either. The same is true of Hanna, who we only can interpret from her actions as a German officer.
The plot of this book has an amazing idea, in that analysis of both the intricacies of youthful experiences as well as the actions of Nazi war criminals were possible. Despite this, the book did not quite live up to my expectations in terms of how these subjects could be explored. The book seemed largely detached at times and a story that could have provoked emotion (as I imagine the movie did) seemed cold and disconnected. Something about the way the story was told just didn't quite ring true to me.
Overall this book has a mighty interesting plot and poses lots of intricate questions. It is a good book to get one thinking, but despite this it seems to lack an element of storytelling.
This is one of Charles Dicken's more well known and regarded books. It's a coming of age tale in the same way that made The catcher in the rye so famous. Pip at the beginning of his story lives with his older sister and her husband Joe. An early experience leads Pip to question himself and the values he was brought up around. It's hard to go much further into the plot without giving the whole thing away so instead I'm just going to vaguely list what I found to be the assets of this book.
Firstly Pip is portrayed amazingly. Although he depicts himself through his faults, you come to love him through the things he doesn't talk about. The way this is done is actually genius. One would think that the portrayal through words is the most important, but Pip as a character proves that actions speak louder than words to quip. Furthermore, I found the character of Joe extremely endearing, although he's sadly portrayed in a light that he doesn't want further education, he just wants the status quo. As far as Joe is concerned, as long as everything is easy enough, e.g. food and shelter, he can go on as he has before. Despite this seemingly irrevocable view, through Pip, he comes to learn more but never succumbs to the same disease of wealth that Pip does.
Dickens is magical in the way he can portray characters through what is not said, rather than through what is said. He is famous for being extremely wordy and it would be correct to say that his sentences are longer and less punctuated than most. Despite this, his writing has always (with perhaps the exception of Nicholas Nickelby) maintained my interest. His characters are so intricately portrayed and the plot stems from them rather than being independent. The fact of the matter is that Dickens seems to have the idea already so firmly in his head that the story flows so naturally you wouldn't even believe it necessitated inventing.
A great book, not my personal favourite (as Bleak House is my favourite) but still a more than decent read.
The first thing I would say about this book is that it does not at all measure up to Ali's first book. In her move to America, Ali has embraced Western culture as superior and something for all nations to aspire to. I think Ali puts far too much faith and clout in the practices of Western society without the critique that is also due to it. She also seems to put too much blame on the plight of families like the one in which she grew up, to Muslim culture. This is despite the fact that she grew up in three different countries in the midst of civil war and that there were a variety of other factors that could have contributed to all the horrors of her upbringing.
As well as this, Ali's views seem to have become more extreme over the last few years. Despite being an atheist, she suggests that Christians convert their Muslim counterparts to Christianity. While I agree with her on the point that feminists need to do more to address the high rates of honour killings and other phenomena, her proposed solution falls far short. Not only does it come across as condescending on her part (e.g. I am an atheist but since you are not like me, you should become Christians) but it is also put across as an easy solution, when in reality many people don't actually want to change their religion because the West says they should. The connection between Muslims and terrorism that she puts across is also problematic, in that most Muslims do not advocate terrorist tactics. Moreover, many of the countries that are Muslim in Africa are so poor because of tactics by Western countries and she does not really address this.
All in all, while I can understand why Ali initially took the political viewpoint she did and I think she has bravely survived everything that's been thrown at her, I do not agree with many of her thoughts in this book.
This book details one of the most important medical discoveries of recent times - that our brains are subject to change in function and structure throughout our lives. This goes against years of thought in the scientific community, which saw the brain developing until late childhood and then declining until death. Doidge, in this book gives us the science behind neuroplasticity (as it is now in common parlance) as well as case examples of people who have come back from seemingly irreversible brain trauma to live relatively normal lives.
This book was effective in its message and the case studies provided real-life examples of how the plasticity of the brain can operate in healing. I do feel that although Doidge admitted there was limits to the plasticity, his tone throughout the book seemed to suggest that neuroplasticity could be used to "cure" any number of things. I can understand why it was exaggerated of course, but I do think this toned down the accuracy of the book a little. I also thought there was far too much reliance on Freudian theory. Doidge rightly points out that Freud theorised neuroplasticity far prior to it becoming a serious scientific idea, however, Doidge talks up Freud throughout the book and there is little concentration on the well documented fact that Freud's own research methods were fraught with inaccuracies.
Overall I think this is a good book. It's fairly well written and it's full of interesting facts. I find the concept of neuroplasticity intriguing and I hope popular writing expands on it more in the next few years.
