The Man From Beijing by Henning Mankel

The Man from Beijing by Henning Mankell

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


The Man from Beijing by Henning Mankell is a book that takes some interesting political positions. In the struggle between the followers of Mao Tse Tung and the followers of Deng Xiaoping, it is the Mao disciples who are fighting ruthless corruption in China. Capitalism is not producing positive results for the masses and Mao even gets a pass on the cultural revolution. The heroine of the novel, a Swedish judge, had admired China's red guard during her college years, so the admiration for the old style red communism is not limited to the boundaries of the People's Republic. Combine that perspective with a view on Robert Mugabe that emphasizes the positive and this book presents a perspective I'm not used to hearing.



... Robert Mugabe was a man who in many ways deserved her admiration and respect. Even if not everything he did was good, he was basically convinced that the roots of colonialism grew very deep and needed to be cut away not just once but many times. Not least of the reasons she respected him was she had read how he was constantly and brutally attacked in the Western media.



The Man from Beijing is an action thriller and a good one. I was pleased with the unique story, but disappointed with the ending, which I felt left too many loose ends and was too dependent on information found in diaries. Overall the book was exciting and the characters were well drawn: flawed and real. My wife disagrees with my assessment of the ending. We'll be discussing this book in our next book club meeting, so it will be interesting to hear other people's opinions on this.



View all my reviews

Tea Party, Occupy Movement, and what we can learn from Tolstoy

As I've mentioned in other blog posts, one of the most interesting aspects of reading literature from another era is the way it gives us a window into the thought of a time with knowledge of what eventually occurred. Anna Karenina was published in serial form from 1873 to 1877. The October revolution in Russia took place in 1917, forty-four years later. Yet in the text of Tolstoy's novel communism is mentioned a few times. It's thought of as a radical, but logical approach to the problems of economic injustice.

Konstantin Levin is the character with a conscience and a tendency toward philosophical thought that Tolstoy uses to present the impressions of what was then a new political philosophy.

Then, too, his brother's talk of communism, which he had treated so lightly at the time, now made him think. He considered a revolution in economic conditions nonsense. But he always felt the injustice of his own abundance in comparison with the poverty of the peasants, and now he determined that so as to feel quite in the right, though he had worked hard and lived by no means luxuriously before, he would now work still harder, and would allow himself even less luxury.

Later Konstantin Levin needs to defend his ideas to his brother Nikolay.

“You've simply borrowed an idea that's not your own, but you've distorted it, and are trying to apply it where it's not applicable.”

“But I tell you it's nothing to do with it. They deny the justice of property, of capital, of inheritance, while I do not deny this chief stimulus.”

I can see parallels with our own time, as our politics becomes more polarized with each election. The trickle down philosophy of the Tea Party and the justice for all philosophy of the Occupy movement both have their points. But just as the communists of Tolstoy's era eventually became the Stalinists of latter years, our right and left wing radicals could lead us down a dangerous path if we're not careful to remain rational.

The Hearts and Minds of Tolstoy's Characters

As I make my way through Anna Karenina I am once again amazed at the ability of Tolstoy to understand what's in the hearts and minds of his characters. I've passed the section in the novel where Anna reveals to her husband that she is having an affair. She's been pushed into this admission because she's pregnant. She attributes to herself a love of truth, but that truth was not so important before she was forced to face it.

Despite the fact that the affair occurred because of a mutual attraction between Anna and Vronsky that led to Vronsky pursuing her until she submitted, Anna sees her husband as being at fault. She admits to her own flaws, but passes them over quickly in her mind and concentrates on what annoys her about her husband.

“I'm a wicked woman, a lost woman,” she thought; “but I don't like lying, I can't endure a falsehood, while as for him (her husband) it's the breath of his life—falsehood. He knows all about it, he sees it all; what does he care if he can talk so calmly? If he were to kill me, if he were to kill Vronsky, I might respect him. No, all he wants is falsehood and propriety,” Anna said to herself, not considering exactly what it was she wanted of her husband, and how she would have liked to see him behave. She did not understand either that Alexey Alexandrovitch's peculiar loquacity that day, so exasperating to her, was merely the expression of his inward distress and uneasiness.

As a reader I sympathize with Anna because I see her humanity. I also sympathize with her husband and her lover, because I can understand what they're going through as well. This novel concentrates on what the characters feel rather than what the author feels better than either Resurrection or War and Peace. That's why I consider this the best of the three I've included in my reading list.

Tolstoy mini marathon continues with Anna Karenina

I saved Anna Karenina for the last book in my mini Tolstoy marathon, because I've read it before and, although it was too long ago to remember many details, I do remember that it was a wonderful read. I'm about a fifth of the way through it and it is even better than my memory of it.

I wonder if the readers of War and Peace told Tolstoy that his handling of relationships in that work was great and that he should write another book that focused exclusively on the characters rather than covering history and dwelling on conjecture about the reasons populations follow leaders. If so, they pointed him in the right direction.

Tolstoy's brilliance comes from his observation of human behavior and his ability to put the tiniest details into his writing without ever losing the attention of his readers. The next section is a good example of this. It is written from the point of view of Count Vronsky when he first sees Anna.

With the insight of a man of the world, from one glance at this lady's appearance Vronsky classified her as belonging to the best society. He begged pardon, and was getting into the carriage, but felt he must glance at her once more; not that she was very beautiful, not on account of the elegance and modest grace which were apparent in her whole figure, but because in the expression of her charming face, as she passed close by him there was something peculiarly caressing and soft. As he looked around, she too turned her head. Her shining gray eyes, that looked dark from the thick lashes, rested with friendly attention on his face, as though she were recognizing him, and then promptly turned away to the passing crowd, as though seeking someone. In that brief look Vronsky had time to notice the suppressed eagerness which played over her face, and flitted between the brilliant eyes and the faint smile that curved her red lips. It was as though her nature were so brimming over with something that against her will it showed itself now in the flash of her eyes, and now in her smile. Deliberately she shrouded the light in her eyes, but it shone against her will in the faintly perceptible smile.

I believe I could build an entire writing class on the study of that single paragaph.

Lovely in Her Bones by Sharyn McCrumb

Lovely in Her Bones by Sharyn McCrumb

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


I've read a couple of Sharyn McCrumb books in the past. I enjoyed them both, so I thought I'd read a few more. I'm glad I made that decision.



McCrumb wrote her first novel, Sick of Shadows, years ago when we were in a writers' group together. I got to critique that one before it was published and that's something I'm proud of. The other book of hers I read was The Rosewood Casket. I think her writing skills grew over time, but she was always talented and Lovely in Her Bones is a good example of that.



Lovely in Her Bones is one of McCrumb's Elizabeth MacPherson novels, stories of a young amateur detective's adventures. This one is filled with interesting facts about anthropology and about life in the Appalachian mountains. It was first published in 1985, so I'm sure some things have changed over that period. I imagine there are new ways to determine race from bones and I believe hydrofracking is the environmental concern getting the most press today, rather than strip mining. But the human sides of racial issues as well as money vs. pollution issues haven't changed. And the same goes for relationship issues. Sharyn McCrumb's characters are complex and interesting. Milo isn't the perfect boyfriend for Elizabeth. I like the twists that fact caused.



Lovely in Her Bones is a short, fun read. Sharyn McCrumb's sense of humor is wonderful. I plan to read the rest of the series.









View all my reviews

War and Peace by Tolstoy

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy

My rating: 5 of 5 stars


In War and Peace Tolstoy takes three roles. He is a novelist, an historian, and a philosopher. When the role of philosopher is incorporated into the characters it works wonderfully. As an example here is something Pierre says toward the end of the book when explaining his need to go to Petersburg. It expresses a thought that could be the motto for the current Occupy movement. The idea is, at its core, profound, but it is expressed in a simple way.



I only wished to say that ideas that have great results are always simple ones. My whole idea is that if vicious people are united and constitute a power, then honest folk must do the same. Now that's simple enough.



But in the second epilogue Tolstoy drops the story entirely and reflects on the reasons people do what they do. He has interesting ideas about power.



The question: how did individuals make nations act as they wished and by what was the will of these individuals themselves guided?



Tolstoy goes on to reflect on the reasons people do anything, from conducting a war to raising his arm. It can be interesting if the reader is in the right frame of mind, but can drag if he isn't.



The history contained in the novel was fascinating to me because I knew very little about the Napoleonic wars. While reading the book I often went to the internet to compare Tolstoy's view from some other historians. It was an interesting way to learn about that period of world history.



The story within the novel was the reason I read the book. The characters were all well portrayed and unique. We stayed with them long enough to get to know them well. Early on in the book Prince Andrew Bolkonski was my favorite, but as the story went on I found myself more drawn toward Pierre Bezukhov. He was constantly trying to understand the purpose of life throughout the book. He tried a spiritual road, joining the Masons and trying to live according to their disciplines. He wasn't in the military, but went into battle to sit with the troops and try to understand war. He also tried to free his serfs to see if that brought him a feeling of self worth. Toward the end he found value in his relationship with Natash Rostova, but even after he'd settled into that happy marriage, he was still searching for more, through political activism. I also loved the way real people were portrayed as characters including General Kutuzov and Napoleon.



I'm sure it is no surprise that I've rated War and Peace as a five star book given its place in the history of literature. But it isn't only its reputation that makes it well worth the time it takes to read it.



View all my reviews

The burning of Moscow in War and Peace

One of the great things about reading War and Peace is the way it draws the reader into situations that are a part of history. I believe I mentioned this in a previous blog when I was talking about the scenes that focus on Napoleon and how real he seems in the book. This picture also applies to the big events as well as to the individuals who populate those events.

Prior to reading War and Peace I knew very little about the burning of Moscow in 1812. Apparently the Russians were being invaded by a French army that was stronger than their own. Since they were convinced that they couldn't defeat the French they abandoned the city. Here's where things get a little vague. Tolstoy writes that the fires were accidentally set by the French occupiers who were careless in homes that did not belong to them.

However tempting it might be for the French to blame Rostopchin's ferocity and for Russians to blame the scoundrel Bonaparte, or later on to place an heroic torch in the hands of their own people, it is impossible not to see that there could be no such direct cause of the fire, for Moscow had to burn as every village, factory, or house must burn which is left by its owners and in which strangers are allowed to live and cook their porridge.

When I did a quick web search on the burning of Moscow I found that other historians (I think it is fair to call Tolstoy an historian) had different theories, some believing the city was burned by the Russians to keep its treasures out of the hands of the French and others believing that the French intentionally set the fires as a part of the anger and hatred that always accompanies war. It would be nice to know the truth, but it is the way the French reacted that is the most interesting result of the fire.

At first I thought it was simply the lack of supplies that wrecked havoc on the French, but it was more complex than that. The burning affected the French soldiers psychologically. Napoleon issued proclamations offering the Russians peaceful reentry into their city and declaring severe punishment for French soldiers found looting, but this did no good. He had crossed all of Europe to take over a city that had no people! A month later the French left Moscow and did so in a way that left them vulnerable to Russian attacks.