JESS JUST READS

A BOOK REVIEW BLOG

The Lord of the Rings Series by J.R.R. Tolkien

I realise that most of the novels I’ve reviewed so far have been given high scores. But, most of the novels I want to read are the ones that I’ve heard of from other writers. They’re either a classic, or they will be a classic, or they’re just amazing in a ‘that’s such a good idea for a novel. Why didn’t I think of that?’ kind of way.

This review is no different. Tolkien could do no wrong. I love The Lord of the Rings almost as much as I love Harry Potter. Although it took me until I was 21 to read the series. I must’ve tried to read The Fellowship of the Ring about 20 times when I was younger, to the point where I had Bilbo’s birthday speech memorised. Sometimes it’s hard to read the book when you’ve seen the movie so many times. And, it just killed me when I realised that most of the female characters in The Lord of the Rings films were created by Peter Jackson, and actually didn’t exist in the novels.

The series – The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and The Return of the King – follows Frodo Baggins as he tries to destroy the ring of power, which was forged by Sauron in the depths of Mount Doom. Frodo originally sets out with nine companions, but they soon separate and multiple journeys are documented. Unlike the prequel (The Hobbit) where I felt the journey was rushed, each novel in the series is well paced and the character’s actions are realistic. The setting is described well and can be imagined easily, and the dialogue is representative of each character’s role within the novel. When the journey finally ends, it’s doesn’t feel like one of those TV shows where it’s dragged on (Prison Break and Lost). It’s bittersweet, and Tolkien did the story justice.

My Score: 10/10
The Next Novel on my List? Perfume: The Story of a Murderer by Patrick Suskind

Hamlet, by William Shakespeare

It kills me when people say that they don’t like Hamlet:
“I just don’t get it.”
“Well, I don’t get you.”

That’s the best reply that I’ve got. But when they ask me why Hamlet is my favourite Shakespeare play, I can’t seem to answer. Perhaps it’s because it feels the most realistic. Most of Shakespeare’s plays seem to have that unnecessary death and silliness. Like, ‘I heard a rumour about you and before I work out if it’s true, I’m going to kill you’ or ‘I’m sad that you’re dead so I’ll die too, even though I haven’t double checked that you’re dead yet’.

Hamlet takes place after Prince Hamlet’s father, the King, has been murdered by Hamlet’s Uncle Claudius. And now, Uncle Claudius is married to Hamlet’s mother. Hamlet can’t quite move on from this, and plots revenge. But, he’s a procrastinator, and can never quite do it. He almost does it, but then kills someone else instead, and then he puts on a play about the murder so that he can judge Claudius’ reaction to make sure that he is 100% guilty. And then he tries to stab him, but stops himself, because he doesn’t want Claudius to go to heaven. It’s take quite a while for Hamlet to do what he set out to do. And, many people die in the process. But, it wouldn’t be a Shakespeare play without death.

The play introduces themes of supernatural, god, religion, madness, and identity (my personal favourite) and is a popular choice for Grade 12 English assignments. So, naturally, teenagers are bound to hate it if they’re forced to read it. But, I was forced to read it, and I’m glad I was.

My Score: 8/10
The Next Novel on my List? The Lord of the Rings series, by J.R.R Tolkien

Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell

Because I’m studying Nineteen Eighty-Four for my Honours thesis, I’ve analysed it so much that I can’t actually remember what I initially thought of the novel. I remember reading the ending a few times, because I worried that I wasn’t fully grasping its significance. And then, I remember everyone frowning at me when I told them that this was the first time I’d ever read Nineteen Eighty-Four.

“You haven’t read 1984 before? Where did you go to school, the North Pole?”
Or
“You’re a writer, and yet you haven’t read 1984?”

It’s a thicker book, and it’s not an ‘I’ll just read a few pages before bed’ type of novel. It’s an ‘I’m feeling intellectual today and would like some stimulating material’ type of novel; you need to allocate a chunk of time in order to do it justice.

This dystopian novel was written by George Orwell on his death bed in 1948, and is set in the futuristic 1984. The protagonist, Winston Smith, inwardly defies the oppressive state, led by Big Brother. Winston buys a diary so that he can secretly express free will and thought, and starts an affair with Julia, a woman who works in his building. The novel is rife with irony and internal conflict, and Winston is presented as a fractured but defiant character.

This novel is faultless. The characters are fleshed out, and the development of the storyline is gradual, but needed. The final third of the novel – I won’t ruin it for anyone else who went to school in the North Pole – is powerful, in a way that the reader feels they haven’t quite grasped the meaning of it, yet they know they have. You feel like you have to re-read the novel a few times before you feel that you understand it. Nevertheless, if you have the time to read it, I highly recommend it.

My Score: 10/10
The Next Novel on my List? Hamlet by William Shakespeare.

Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury

I’ve been meaning to read Fahrenheit 451 for a while now, but never got around to it because of the hundreds of other books that I’ve been meaning to read. And truthfully, I finished reading it about three weeks ago, but have only now found the time to sit down and write this review.

I was thinking of studying it for my Honours degree, and I used that as an opportunity to read it. Now that I’ve read it, I’m not actually going to be studying it, but at least I can cross the novel off my list (I don’t actually have a list – who has time to write one?).

You’re probably noticing a pattern. My last review was a dystopian novel as well; that’s because I am a dystopian fiction writer. Or, a speculative fiction writer, but they really mean the same thing. Regardless, I read a lot of dystopian fiction (Margaret Atwood will probably feature a lot on this blog).

Set in a futuristic world, Guy Montag is a fireman, and in this dystopian setting, firemen actually start fires, instead of putting them out. That is, they’ll burn down houses if the person living inside owns outlawed books. Guy doesn’t doubt his job, but when he meets new neighbour, free-spirited Clarisse, and then a woman willingly burns herself alive in her own home (with her beloved books), Guy starts to second-guess his morals. And so Guy starts to hide books in his house, and read them aloud to his wife. And then he gets caught, and murders his boss, and then is on the run.

This novel is not too long, so for all those ‘I don’t read’ people, you have no excuse. Even though I’m not using this novel for my Honours thesis, I’d thoroughly recommend it.

My Score: 8/10
The Next Novel on my List? 1984 by George Orwell

Gunslinger, by Stephen King

I’ve broken my King virginity, but not necessarily by choice. My Honours study requires an exegesis, and I’m exploring duality within dystopian fiction protagonists. This means that I need example novels to review and critic in my thesis – enter, Stephen King. Gunslinger, published in 1982, is the first novel in a five-book dystopian series. It also took King twelve and a half years to write Gunslinger, which makes me feel better that I’m still working on my novel as it ticks over to three years.

Gunslinger has all the elements of a typical dystopian novel: few characters, melancholic atmosphere, depressing setting, and tragedy. And when I say tragedy, I mean death, of course. You can’t have a dystopian novel without a few deaths. The story itself is a little slow and confusing, not much information is given about Gunslinger, or his rival, The Man in Black. But the setting is established well through the interactions between Gunslinger and Jake Chambers, a young boy who died from being pushed in front of a car. He’s alive in the book, but that’s because the setting is almost a parallel universe, which I guessed is somewhat like the ‘afterlife’ and The Man in Black is actually the grim reaper. But, to find out if I’m right or wrong, I’d have to read the rest of the novels. And for the time being, I think I’ll leave it at Gunslinger.

Gunslinger, whose real name is Roland, is quite the anti-hero. He sacrifices Jake, but Roland knew he was going to have to do that from the beginning of the book. So did Jake, but he went along with Roland anyway. Roland also had to kill every person in a small town because The Man in Black placed a curse on him. Among these people was Allie, Roland’s short-term lover.

Roland is on a quest to find the Dark Tower, which he’ll probably get to in the final novel. In Gunslinger, Roland ventures through towns and across deserts, mostly by himself. And while he does this, very little information is revealed about anything. My edition starts with a quote by Stephen King himself. He wanted to create an epic like Lord of the Rings. Gunslinger is no Fellowship, but it definitely is the beginning of an epic tale.

My Score: 4/10
The Next Novel on My List? Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury.