It

It

Stephen King

This book was nearly at the top of my reading list this summer. When I was a kid (probably about 12 or 13) I wanted to read it, but because of the content my parents told me to wait until I was older. Considering its length (almost 1100 pages), I couldn't really read it without them knowing. However, as I got older, I guess I just forgot about the book. While I have read many Stephen King books, for some reason I never got around to reading this one in my adult life. I've even read some of his least acclaimed works, which seems funny to me because this is one of his most famous novels.

Naturally, then, I had high expectations when I began reading this one lazy summer afternoon. Unfortunately, I think I missed the window of opportunity for this novel in my adult life, at least in terms of the famous "fright factor." Had this been my first Stephen King novel, I probably would have found it quite disturbing. Pennywise the Clown is certainly an amazing villain that truly showcases King's imagination for the macabre. However, I found his technique fairly repetitive throughout. He tends to do the same thing when he's trying to scare you, meaning that he always begins with an innocuous event or memory that is suddenly interrupted by a grinning, horrifying image.

This is not to say that the book did not have its moments for which King is famous. Despite my familiarity with his work, he occasionally surprised me. But, the strength of this novel does not rely on how often he scares you, but on the reality of the characters he creates. In lesser hands, this novel could have been nothing more than a Tales from the Crypt short. It is superior to King's other works in that he takes time to let the reader get to know the characters, specifically the gang that works to stop the unmentionable evil that haunts Derry, Maine. Additionally, he gives some insight into the human villains as well, occasionally adopting their points of view. What is actually more frightening in this novel is not the clown (or whatever form It chooses to adopt) but human behavior in the face of this evil. Many in the town choose to ignore it, run away, or even worse, accept it as part of life.

I don't want to spoil anything for those of you who would like to read it. This is not my favorite King novel, but I would agree it is one of his best. It is certainly a significant time investment, but if you are willing to trudge through it (and unfortunately, there is some trudging to be done) I think you will find the novel worth it. Despite its long-winded moments and minor side-stories (whose relation to the main story is tenuous), it all comes together brilliantly in the end. It has a reputation of being one of the best horror novels ever written, and I could certainly see it meriting that acclaim. However, it deserves just as much credit for King's reflections of childhood, of experience, of best-friendships, of love and fear, and of growing up and moving on.

If you are a Stephen King fan who has not read this book, you won't find many surprises here. If you have not read any of his work, this book is a great starting point (although I would recommend The Shining, The Stand, Carrie, or Cujo first). Regardless of how you feel about Stephen King, though, I would say that this book would probably be enjoyable for almost anyone. The ending of the novel is absolutely heart-breaking in a way that I could never have predicted. While it is marketed as a horror novel, Stephen King's power is his ability to make a living, breathing novel out of a ghost story. It is no exception to his brilliance as a writer, and though it was not one of my personal favorites, I don't think I will ever forget what happened in Derry, Maine.

4 out of 5

Second Review: Two Bret Easton Ellis Novels

Less than Zero

The Rules of Attraction

Bret Easton Ellis

After I read American Psycho a few months ago I was definitely interested in reading more of Bret Easton Ellis' books. These two novels are Ellis' first novels, and considering he wrote them while still an undergraduate in college, I must say that they are quite impressive. I know I certainly didn't write in books as an undergrad, and even as a post-graduate student I am struggling to do so. However, if these books provide any insight into his work ethic as a student, it is fairly easy to see where he found the time to write. Both of these books are about students, and in both books, none of his characters find school important. They don't go to class, electing instead to attend parties, find drugs, and engage in "promiscuous activity."

I chose to review these two books together because of the similarity in themes, characters, and I think they work well together as a pair. They complement one another in a way that is probably intentional (although this opinion is made in retrospect, as these books were written in the mid to late 80s). In addition, all (or almost all) of Ellis' novels have characters from his other books. For instance, the main character in The Rules of Attraction is Sean Bateman, who is Patrick Bateman's younger brother (American Psycho). Clay, who is the main character of Less than Zero also has a cameo in The Rules of Attraction. Also, two characters from The Rules of Attraction appear prominently in Ellis' Glamorama.

Briefly, Less than Zero is about a young college student who returns home to L.A. on Christmas break. Once he returns, he quickly finds himself immersed in the disaffected youth culture he sought to escape by going to a liberal arts school in the East. He reconnects with his current girlfriend Blair (with whom he is technically in a relationship, although he has not called her for four months), though the designated relationship means nothing in terms of actions. He cheats on her, she cheats on him, nobody really cares. He also spends a good portion of the novel trying to find his friend Julian, who seems involved in shady activity. Clay shows as much concern as possible, which in this novel means he mentions it in passing before attending a party hoping his friend will be there.

The Rules of Attraction introduces us to a few more characters, but they attend Camden with Clay (Clay is only mentioned once in this novel, however). The story is rather difficult to define, as it pretty accurately depicts life for three hard-partying students who cannot pick a major and who do not attend class. The three main characters are Lauren Hynde, Sean Bateman, and Paul Denton. Essentially, these three enter a love triangle that complicates life for each other in different ways, both in terms of defining their individual sexualities (Sean and Paul have a tumultuous affair) and in terms of defining their emotions within those relationships.

Before I begin with the review, I must say that after reading American Psycho I was intrigued about other novels Ellis has published. After I finish Glamorama this week I will have read all of his books except one, which I will probably read in the near future as well. I am definitely a fan of his work. But, I also noticed that his books have gotten better. These books are great considering when he wrote them, but they do not quite match up next to American Psycho or Glamorama (at least what I've read of it so far). These books do provide a good introduction to the satirical tone for which he is famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view), but his focus on narrative has definitely sharpened throughout his career.

Not one to shy away from difficult topics, Ellis throws quite a bit at the reader throughout both of these novels. The characters seem flat, as they have no emotion and just act. While Rules gives a little more insight into the thought processes of the characters, their attitudes still have a disenchanted tone. What we normally value in our lives (relationships, friendships, love, success) these characters simply keep separate from themselves and examine half-heartedly, as if they are minor pieces that have the potential to make them whole. However, they lack the motivation to put these pieces together and savor experiences. They just exist, do what feels good, and move on with their lives. They reduce relationships to sex, friendships to a person's usefulness, love to stoicism, and success to mere survival. Whenever something happens that throws this routine off, the characters remove one or all of these components from their lives until it is safe to include them again without emotion.

There are some absolutely terrible scenes in these books as well (which I will not go into too deeply), but Ellis presents them so dispassionately that I often felt desensitized. The narrators in both books simply present these scenes as facts, but do not display any emotion or opinion about what they see or hear. In Less than Zero, Clay walks in and observes a crime. He simply leaves the room and goes somewhere else until it stops. Afterwards, he continues on with his day or night, which in this novel is interchangeable.

Typically, flat characters are a no-no in the literary world, but in these books it is absolutely intentional. Everything about the characters is blase, from the dialogue to the narrators' descriptions of events and other characters. I do feel it necessary to point out, however, that while it makes both novels intriguing stylistically, it does not always translate to "a good read." At times the narrative can be monotonous, and in fact the narrative thread was not obvious to me until I was almost done with both books.

Overall, I found Rules to be slightly stronger, simply because Ellis presents several points of view throughout the novel. It is especially interesting when he presents multiple points of view of the same event, which is usually a rendezvous between the main characters. At times it is funny, but more often it is simply pathetic.

If you like your literature to deliver a knockout punch, with clear endings, justice, and definitive outcomes, Ellis is not the author for you. There are no pretty packages or bows here, or in any of his novels. This can be an unsatisfying experience, but I've found that postmodern endings stay with me a little longer. I personally like wondering how a story really ends, but I recognize that when I finish a novel I often feel frustrated. While I liked these books in general, I found that I did not care for the characters enough to think too much about what happened to them after the novel. It is in this respect that a contradiction in Ellis' writing lies; the prose is so disaffected that it desensitizes the reader as well.

In general, Ellis does not create savory characters. I believe the two dimensional aspect of these novels is intentional, but it is often at the expense of reader involvement. I did not really want to see any more of them when I was through, whereas in his more recent works he develops his characters in a way that is interesting. If you are looking for an introduction to Ellis, I would suggest either of these novels before you tackle any of his later work. They are short (though not easy) books, and you will also be able to develop your opinions of Ellis fairly definitively. While I think he is great, I suspect that many readers have a "love him or hate him" relationship with his work without many opinions in between.

Less than Zero 3/5

The Rules of Attraction 3.5/5

Number 8

A Confederacy of Dunces

John Kennedy Toole

As I said, this top 10 list is fairly random. My top 3 books are the only ones I can truly say are in order, but all in the top 10 have probably been my favorite book at some point or another. This is definitely the case with this novel. I read this in my high school English class when I was a junior. I absolutely loved it, and still do to this day. I've probably read it about 3 times, and each time I read it I get something different from the experience. The last time I read it was after Hurricane Katrina, which added a bit of a sadness to a novel that is for the most part comical. If you've ever been to New Orleans, you'll know that this book nails the atmosphere perfectly. Everything from the description of the French Quarter, the Lucky Dog vendors on Bourbon Street at all hours of the night, even the different types of people you will meet throughout the city.

The novel centers on the adventures (or misadventures) of Ignatius J. Reilly. Reilly is an incredibly intelligent, self-proclaimed "philosopher" with a degree in Medieval philosophy. Prior to the novel, he was a teacher at Tulane, where he was incredibly unpopular with students and lost his job. In one memorable scene, he describes himself throwing their papers out of an office window because he refuses to read such trash. However, instead of looking for another job, he simply stays at home and writes his postulations in a series of notebooks. He also takes long baths, complaining to his mother about his stomach problems. As a large man, Ignatius does not do much except write and complain. However, when he and his mother encounter a financial hardship, he is forced to find a job. The Medieval philosopher becomes a New Orleans institution: a Lucky Dog vendor.

While Ignatius is a brilliant character, what really sets this novel apart is how Toole intertwines various characters throughout the book. While not difficult to follow, I cannot give many details here without giving away most of the story. But, you will meet a frustrated door man, a vice cop forced to work men's restrooms (and solicit men in order to entrap potential customers), a strip club proprietor with a seedy business on the side, an aspiring stripper who continually creates elaborate ways in which to remove her clothes (one dance involves her pet bird), a frustrated hype man/bouncer, and the owner of a struggling jean manufacturer. Amazingly, the story and characters fit together perfectly.

The book is quite funny, but underneath all the humor is a somewhat sad relationship between Ignatius and his mother. Throughout the novel, I found myself feeling sorry for his mother and frustrated with Ignatius. However, the dynamic that exists between them is probably the most interesting and well-developed part of the novel. While the story at times becomes outlandish, this aspect strikes home like nothing else.

Unfortunately, Toole only wrote one other novel (The Neon Bible), which I have not read. A Confederacy of Dunces was actually published after his death, so sadly he was not alive to see any of the acclaim it received.

Despite how wonderful this book is to me, reading it is also sad because of how obviously talented Toole is as a writer. Who knows what else he could have written? I do plan to read this book again soon, although I might have to buy a new one because the binding has separated on my current copy! Put this book on your list. You won't regret it!

First Review!

The Deer Park

Norman Mailer

When I began reading this book, I was pretty excited because of the literary status of Norman Mailer. In order to save money this summer, I decided to get a library card. The only issue with that, however, is that many times the books I want to read are checked out. When I saw this on one of my weekly trips to the "book renter," I snatched it up as quickly as I could.

I am more familiar with Mailer's work by name (mostly his name, not the titles of his work). This is my first book by Mailer, so though I know he is a part of that famous group of American elite, I wasn't sure why. After reading I can certainly understand why he is a great writer, but this book was not the tour de force I was expecting.

As you can see by the picture above, his name is bigger than the title of the book. I'm not sure if this is a Freudian slip of some sort, but the book seems primarily to rely on Mailer's status instead of the content. It's almost as if the publisher is saying, "Look what we got!"

The premise is fairly interesting. A former Air Force pilot, Sergius O'Shaugnessy, comes to California after winning $14,000 at a poker game in Japan. Since he is suddenly rich, he decides to stay at the resort Desert D'Or. While there, he meets a famous director on the steep side of his career toward obscurity. The reason for this, we learn, is that he has been accused of working for the Communist party and has been blacklisted. These two become friends and travel to a variety of lavish parties in the area. While the story becomes more complicated because of the relationships to minor characters throughout, suffice it to say they meet two ladies who capture their interests. Charles Eitel (the director) meets Elena, who is a lowly dancer who is also "experienced" in the language of love. She was the former mistress of one of Eitel's friends. Sergius meets Lulu, a famous actress who is also astoundingly beautiful, and effectively fits the stereotype of a starlet. Prissy, demanding, affectionate at times, and also promiscuous when the opportunity presents itself and it will benefit her social stature.

After Mailer sets the scene, the rest of the book becomes a tedious romp through the intricacies of relationships. However, in both cases, these couples are dating outside of their social station. Eitel at one point asks, "Why would a second rate man date a fifth rate woman?" In Sergius' case, Lulu is clearly above him and many times treats him that way. Eventually, the Hollywood life (in this book called the capital) gets the best of them. They misuse one another, but then feel bad about it and make up. And so it goes, ad infinitum.

I won't spoil the end here. All I can say is that I was confused. To Mailer's credit, I think this is actually one of the strongest point of the book because I feel it accurately reflects how relationships affect real people. Many times, we are left with mixed feelings about how that relationship has influenced our lives. Are we better off because of it or did the relationship hurt us? There are ups and downs in any relationship, and Mailer captures those moments perfectly. While there is no concrete resolution, I don't think it needed one. Life goes on, and sometimes the best way to move forward is to leave those people in the past. Those people were there, but now they are gone.

In addition, there are some gorgeous passages about the human condition here. The conflict that occurs in any relationship, how to address it, the spark between new lovers, and then finding what else is there when the spark fades. These are not admirable characters, but they are human characters with flaws and weaknesses.

The most difficult part of the book for me was keeping the narrator straight. I believe Sergius is the narrator, although the book follows Eitel frequently through very intimate scenes. Is Sergius omniscient? Is he making it up? Or did the narrative shift to Eitel? I never figured it out, so I just learned to take the narrative at face value, or perhaps as an objective omniscient narrator not actually participating in the action.

While I can certainly appreciate Mailer's talent (especially concerning dialogue, which is top notch in this book, and writing and explaining difficult emotions in new ways), a lot of reading this book is drudge work. As in real life, characters weave in and out of the story line in various capacities. But, there is really no driving force behind any of the action. The book is primarily dialogue-driven (both through internal monologues and character conversations), but I never had a sense that the book was approaching any end. Ultimately, that is what bothered me the most about it. It could have gone on forever, but instead, it just ends because the narrator (whoever that is) decides it's time.

I would certainly be interested in reading other Mailer books. He seems to have a special aptitude for capturing humanity without resorting to cliche, which is probably one of the most difficult things a writer can do. Also, the book was realistic, as life does not lead up to some revelation or epiphany that ties everything together nicely. But, at the end, I felt rather dissatisfied. This book absolutely has its moments, but most of your reading time will be spent mining them.

Rating: 3/5

Number 9

On Writing

Stephen King

I read this book a few months ago, and I can honestly say it changed my views on the writing process and how a writer actually begins his or her work. If you are a writer and want to be better, if you need a bit of a pep talk about your own personal work, or if you think you might have a talent for writing but have not written anything yet, this book is absolutely a necessity.

If you are familiar with Stephen King's work, you will find that the tone he adopts for most of his books is consistent here. He is funny, descriptive, but also direct and gets to the point quickly. He wrote this book mostly while he was recovering from the injuries he suffered a few years ago (he was hit by a van while walking). However, if you have not read any of Stephen King's books or just do not like his work, there is something here for you too. King covers everything from grammar, creating a story, revising, and even establishing a routine for the writing process.

I read a lot of books on the writing process in college, and I really wish I had just read this one. It is informative without being boring, and somehow he manages to make this a page-turner like his other books. In addition, I finished this book feeling more empowered to write than I ever have in my life. His story itself is inspiring, simply because he wrote his first two books while teaching during the day, supporting a family, and writing with a typewriter in his lap at night. He wrote with no fear of what others thought, and if he was having a tough day writing, he wrote anyway. Personally, I've always felt that whatever I write has to be the genius or innovative, and if it is not it is therefore not worth writing. What I took away from this book is that it doesn't have to set the world on fire. I can write just for the sake of writing and the enjoyment of creating a story. While he has been successful as a writer, he says that even if he wasn't he would still write. Basically, if it's not fun, don't do it. But if it is something you enjoy, go for it. Have fun and see what happens.

Why didn't my professors ever tell me this?