Stikkordarkiv: novel

Sweet Masterpiece – Connie Shelton

I’ll readily admit that the only reason I read Sweet Masterpiece was that it popped up in one of the Bookhub-emails that I actually read as a free book for Kindle, so I downloaded it to my «emergency library» (i.e. my phone), and then started it one of those times I was suddenly stuck somewhere without a book. It seems to be self-published, which would not normally be something I consider as a selling point. «Free,» however, sometimes works.

On the other hand, I would hardly have continued past the first few pages unless I found something to interest (cue trying to pick the next phone-read and dropping No Game for a Dame by M. Ruth Myers, also downloaded because it was free, like a hot potato after only a few sentences). Because I did. I also found quite a few things to irritate, though, so whether I’ll ever read another book of Shelton’s remains to be seen.

Sweet Masterpiece is the first in a series which belongs to the sub-genre «cosy mystery». I’m not neccessarily averse to a bit of cosyness or a bit of mystery, even in combination, however, a little bit of origininality could perhaps have been nice. The mystery is… well, not very mysterious. The cosyness dominates to the exclusion of much of an actual plot. Add to that a magical element – and fond as I am of fantasy, there is a time and a place for magic and I’m not sure this was it – and an ending which was… Well, both unpredictable in a «they lived happily ever after» sort of way and quite, quite as unbeliveable as that phrase is at the best of times.

On the other hand, I liked Shelton’s characters. Sam is charming (dare I say «sweet») in the way which makes you want to curl up with a glass of wine with her and get her to tell you her life story. And the, well, I guess I could call it extended family do their best to liven up an otherwise lumbering story. Add to that some snippets of local detail from an area of the USA I’m not that familiar with and you have enough to keep me going through the 200 odd pages. But, well, unless the next story in the series turns up as a freebie, I guess I’m unlikely to revisit Sam Sweet.

Burial Rites – Hannah Kent

kent_burialritesBurial Rites was the book club pick for June, and I finished it late. However, I’m not sure the fact that it’s not been very long since I finished is going to make this note a long one. Still, anything is better than nothing.

Hannah Kent’s first novel has had praise heaped on it, and I guess I’m going to join the choir. I was fascinated, and in a way I didn’t really expect. I suppose I expected to be bored by the gloominess and the hopelessness of it all. But instead the changing points of view and the way the story is told from several perspectives of time as well as of character leaves me wanting more, and the tale is at times as gripping as a crime novel (which, in a sense, I suppose this is): Who did it, and why?

The novel is based on actual historic events, Agnes Magnúsdóttir was the last person to be executed in Iceland, in 1829 and each chapter starts with an excerpt from official papers regarding the case; letters or court documents. The framework, therefore, is a true story, and much of the detail is based on thorough research into the lives of people in 19th century Icelandic society. The motives, the thoughts and the actions of the characters, are, of course, fiction, but they, also, ring true.

Agnes is a cleverly drawn character and she wins the reader over, just as she wins her unwilling gaolers over in the end.

If I was young and simple-minded, do you think everyone would be pointing the finger at me? No. They’d blame it on Fridrik, saying he overpowered us. Forced us to kill Natan because he wanted his money. That Fridrik desired a little of what Natan had is no great secret. But they see I’ve got a head on my shoulders, and believe a thinking woman cannot be trusted. Believe there’s no room for innocence. And like it or not, Reverend, that is the truth of it.

(Page 132.)

Snowdrops – A. D. Miller

snowdropsI have some catching up to do, so I am going to zip through a couple of book reviews. Well, I’ll try to, anyway. First off is Snowdrops by A. D. Miller, which we read in the book circle last month.

Snowdrops was a fairly quick read, the story was engaging, despite the fact that the narrator pretty much lacks a personality and for a long time nothing much happened.

The narrator is a British lawyer stationed in Russia, mostly because he doesn’t really have a life in Britain:

I found myself entering the thirty-something zone of disappointment, (…) The time of ‘Is that all there is?’ (…) People started running marathons or becoming Buddhists to help them get through it. (…) The truth is, the firm asked me if I’d go out to Moscow, just for a year, they said, maybe two. It was a short cut to a partnership, they hinted. I said yes, and ran away from London and how young I wasn’t anymore.

(Page 35-36) He falls in with a couple of Russian girls (and in love with one of them), Masha and Katya, sisters they say, and gets tangled up in some pretty unsavoury dealings. He is also involved in a rather unfortunate, equally unsavoury deal at work. All in all it’s a bit of a disaster and he is sent home in disgrace. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the novel is the way the story is framed, it’s written as a sort of a letter to the narrators fiance, whom he met after his return from Russia, as a sort of confession prioror to their nuptials. I can’t help thinking that the wedding will have been called off, because he really doesn’t come out of the sorry mess very well (he’s either a cynical douchebag or a pretty pathetic, naive dumbass – take your pick).

Where the novel failed, I think, is in creating the duality that I suspect the author intended. I had some sympathy for the narrator, be he ever so wishy-washy, and wanted to belive he was trying to act for the best, at least until he as so far in as to make backtacking almost impossible. However, I thereupon found myself having to remind myself that the end result of both «deals» was actually pretty horrendous. I wasn’t feeling it at all, I had to step back from the story and say «Wait, what, that is really not very nice.» Interestingly, those in my book circle who really felt how horrible the outcome was had had no sympathy for the narrator from the start (even before he’s really done anything). I should imagine what the author had in mind was for the reader to have some sympathy for both sides, so to say, to think of the narrator as a decent guy to start with and then gradually to realise (as he is supposedly realising it) what atrocities he is actually able to take part in.

The other main point that arose from our discussion of the book was how one-dimensional and distasteful the population of Russia appear in the novel. Well, there are two types of Russians, judging from this book: The scheming crooks who’ll swindle you out of your home, money and everything else, and the naive, kind-hearted souls that are there mostly to be swindled. Hardly the most flattering picture of a nation.

The best thing about Snowdrops was the occasional flash of lingustic brilliance. The quote above, especially the phrase «how young I wasn’t anymore» appealed to me, as did random sentences such as this one:

My nostrils froze together, the hairs inside them hugging each other for survival.

(Page 114) It’s not enough to save the novel, though. Not bad as such, but underwhelming, on the whole.

Factotum – Charles Bukowski

factotum1Factotum was on our book circle summer reading list, so it’s been a couple of weeks since I finished it, but it takes a while to get around to blogging, obviously.

Factotum is surprisingly readable considering the synopsis is «Henry Chinansky travels around the US, being regularly hired and fired all the while constantly drinking and having quite a bit of sex.» I mean, really. That’s the plot.

As usual Carmen was wearing a very tight knitted dress that fit her like a balloon fits the trapped air, maybe tighter.

(Page 68) Much of the charm has to do with language, of course. There are little nuggets of beautifully formed thoughts throughout the book. I found it hard to pick just one or two for this blog entry, so you get a slew of them

He jumped up on the dusty seats, began walking along ripping out old posters with his can opener. So that’s how those things get up there, I thought. People put them there.

(Page 27) This is not life-changing literature. Well, not for me, anyway. But despite Henry hardly being the sort of person you’d trust with… well, anything, really, and despite having more than a little sympaty for his father who insists Henry pay rent and board while staying «at home» for a stretch in the book, it’s hard not to like him.

The problem, as it was in those days during the war, was overtime. Those in control always preferred to overwork a few men continually, instead of hiring more people so everyone might work less. You gave the boss eight hours, and he always asked for more. He never sent you home after six hours, for example. You might have time to think.

(Page 38) And though the hiring and firing gets a little repetitive, the insight it offers into the unskilled, odd-job market is interesting. Most of the time Henry is quite deservedly let go, but occasionally he is fired through no fault of his own, and those occasions serve to illustrate why, perhaps, he cares so little about trying to keep any job. He seems  to think that sooner or later he’ll be fired anyway, so why bother actually doing a good job, and to some extent he may be right.

I always started a job with the feeling that I’d soon quit or be fired, and this gave me a relaxed manner that was mistaken for intelligence or some secret power.

(Page 99-100) If the book has a fault it’s that it sort of peters out at the end. Henry doesn’t get a job as a writer and get his act together, neither does he die in squalour of alchohol poisoning. There you are reading about Henry drinking and losing another job and then on the next page the book ends. No closure, so to say.

Still, I rather enjoyed it.

 

The Mystery of Mercy Close – Marian Keyes

keyes_mercy_closeSince I read everything Marian Keyes publishes, it was only a matter of time before I got around to The Mystery of Mercy Close (when I’ll get around to blogging about This Charming Man – Excellent! – and The Brightest Star in the Sky – Charming. – is another question entirely). As it is when the book circle met before the summer and everyone presented their suggestions for summer reading, two of us had Keyes in our pile (though my pile was virtual, I was badly prepared). And so it ended up on our combined list almost by default.

Things were looking grim, though, until I got out of the funk, fiction was not pleasing me at all. However, I got out somehow and finished The Mystery of Mercy Close, well, not in record time, but certainly quite quickly.

In other words, it’s highly readable. My friend Linda said she had a hard time getting into it because she’s stuck on the other Walsh sisters’ depictions of Helen, but my memory is bad. I mean, really, really bad. It leaks like a sieve. This is one of the reasons I reread, after all. Anyway, I remember Helen being mentioned, obviously, but that’s it. So I found her rather intriguing from the start. She doesn’t «belive in love, fear, depression or hot drinks». She is sour, misantropic and sarcastic.

I have a habit of taking instant dislikes to people. Simply because it saves time.

(Page 72.) She is also distinctly weird, and you can see how she would rub her sisters quite the wrong way, in fact she would rub most people the wrong way. Life in a presumably regular-sized Irish (lower?) middle-class house with 6 other people (parents and four sisters) must have been hellish for someone like Helen.

The fact is that the human race has survived for a very long time (way too long, in my opinion; they can bring on the Rapture anytime they like)

(Page 184.) Anyway, I like her. She’s prickly, but I can feel quite prickly myself on occasion. It will be interesting at some point in the future to reread the other Walsh sisters’ books and see how Helen is actually viewed by them. I must remember to take notes or something, though. (Memory. Leaks. Sieve.)

The Mystery of Mercy Close is partly a classic mystery, Helen is, after all, a private investigator and partly a love story, but it is also very much a book about depression. And it’s the latter that demonstrates, yet again, how Keyes at her best manages to describe the indescribable. Actually, this is not Keyes at her absolute best (Rachel’s Holiday is probably her masterpiece and I also really like This Charming Man), she fails to make me feel what Helen is feeling and there are times I would like to shout «Oh, snap out of it!» even though I know perfectly well that would be quite pointless. What Keyes does manage to convey, though, is the variety of utterly unhelpful reactions someone with depression may expect to encounter in their family and friends (one of which, incidentally, is the «Oh, snap out of it!» thing).

Additionally, the mystery part is compelling, why HAS Wayne Diffney disappeared? The descriptions of boybands, their stereotypes and more especially of the desparate measures old and decrepit boybands might take, are hilarious, as are the scarily accurate analyses of how the originally uninterested general public reacts with the right sort of PR.

As for the love story, the publishers have done the book a disservice by presenting it as some sort of love triangle struggle in their synopsis on the back of my copy, anyway:

When a missing-persons case draws her into the dark, glamorous world of her dodgy ex, Jay Parker, Helen finds she’s seeing more of him and less of Artie Devlin, her sexy detective boyfriend. Caught between smart, stable Artie and chaotic, up-for-anything Jay – two different, equally enticing men – and plagued by her own black doubts, Helen finds she’s beginning to believe in something. But is it fear or is it love?

Sure, there is baggage with Jay and sure, he’s moving in somewhat glamorous circles right now (hardly that glamorous, though, mostly washed-up ex-b-list celebs) and dark? Hardly. And the caught between two men, thing, as a plot? I’m so over it. I was put off by this description and had it been an author I liked less it might have prevented me reading the book. As it is, and I apologize if this is a major spoiler for you (stop reading NOW if you’re intrigued by the love triangle!) Helen is never even close to considering getting together with Jay again. The story with Artie is interesting, however, though it plays a fairly minor role in the grand scheme of things.

In conclusion: Not Keyes’ best (but far from her worst). Definitely worth reading, though.

Incidentally, for the best description of what depression feels like that I have ever read (take into account that I have never experienced clinical depression and therefore cannot judge its accuracy from the inside, so to say, just it’s usefulness in understanding my fellow humans’ behavior) can be found in Allie Brosh’s Hyperbole and a Half.

Dead Until Dark – Charlaine Harris

dead_until_darkSomeone had left the three first Sookie Stackhouse novels on the shelf at my doctor’s office, and since the other available reading material consisted of old parenting or womens’ magazines, I thought I’d check it out. I read far enough to decide to take it home, but then found I had rather more interesting things to read when I got there, so it was left on the «in progress» pile for a few months. But then I had this funk, and starting something I want to like when I’m in a funk is not a good idea, as even things that ought to please me tend not to, so I decided to try something I wasn’t expecting to like and see if that could snap me out of it. And do you know, I think it might have worked.

At least I read the book right through, I even found myself wondering what would happen next and actually wanting to pick up the book. A far-fetched yarn was obviously just what I needed. A well-written one, mind you. Dead Until Dark certainly is competent handiwork. Not great art, perhaps, but no annoying linguistical flaws and a storyline that works.

As for Sookie. Well, I sort of like her, though I found some of her reasoning annoyingly rather than charmingly naive, but Dead Until Dark did not really convince me I should go on to read more in the series. The whole vampire thing creeps me out in entirely the wrong way. Not the deliciously creepy «Oooooh, I’m scared» sort of way, but in the «Ugh, gross» and «this vampire is entirely too sparkly and the sex scenes seem gratuitous, I am too old for this shit» sort of way. And I find the whole concept of society as a whole accepting vampires because of the entirely fake «it’s a virus» story completely unbelievable. So, no. I probably won’t read any more Stackhouse novels (and I certainly won’t be watching True Blood any time soon).

But I am grateful to Harris for helping me out of the reading funk. At least I’m reading fiction again. My copy has now been registered at Bookcrossing, and I’ll drop it off somewhere to please or annoy another reader.

The Chronicles of Narmo – Caitlin Moran

moran_narmoAfter How to be a Woman I have a bit of a crush on Caitlin Moran, and so The Chronicles of Narmo was an obvious purchase when I managed a few minutes in a book shop in London. It’s a short novel, written when Moran was just fifteen and based on her own family’s (mis)adventures.

It’s not a brilliant book. As a narrative it only works haltingly and there isn’t much of a plot, really. Where it excels is where Moran still excels, in the clever turn of phrase. It is what makes the book worth reading.

In order to reach the Earth, the Sun has to travel eighty million million miles, across the universe, through the atmospheres and magnetic pulls of countless planets; it has to seep its way through clouds of stardust twelve thousand miles thick. It plays leapfrog with time and has a neat little party trick of standing where it was eight and a half minutes ago. And still – after all this exertion – it still had the energy to struggle through the yellowing nets and purple nylon curtains of Bill and Carol’s bedroom, and wake them up.

(P 48) Not entirely accurate astronomy-wise, perhaps, but still rather lovely.

Moon over Soho – Ben Aaronovitch

Moon_Over_SohoHaving read Rivers of London, not going straight on to Moon over Soho was an impossibility, so I did, disregarding all other plans for January reading (the two books appearing between this one and Rivers of London were actually read in 2013).

At the novel’s start, PC Peter Grant is back to his regular training programme at The Folly, and Lesley is at her parents’ house, recuperating. Peter goes to visit, driving from London:

At the end of the road lay Brightlingsea, lining the coast – so Lesley had always told me – like a collection of rubbish stranded at the high-water mark.

I keep loving the way Aaronovitch uses language and the impossibly charming hate-love relationship with London and Britain he displays. Not to mention the cultural references:

At this very moment astronomers are detecting planets around distant stars by measuring how much their orbits wibble, and the clever people at CERN are smashing particles together in the hope that Doctor Who will turn up and tell them to stop.

Aaronovitch is also conversant in corporate newspeak:

‘Are you SIO on this, ma’am?’ I asked. The Senior Investigating Officer on a serious crime was usually at the very least a detective inspector, not a sergeant. ‘Of course not,’ said Stephanopoulos. ‘We have a DCI on loan from Havering CID, but he’s adopted a loose collaborative management approach in which experienced officers undertake a lead role in areas where they have the greatest expertise.’ In other words, he’d locked himself in his office and let Stephanopoulos get on with it. ‘It’s always gratifying to see senior officers adopting a forward-looking posture in their vertical relationships,’ I said, and was rewarded by something that was almost a smile.

He is also not afraid to call out institutionalized and internalized racism:

Outside the big cities, my very appearance can sometimes be enough to render certain people speechless. So it was with Harold Postmartin, D.Phil, FRS, Curator of Special Collections at the Bodleian Library, who had clearly been expecting Nightingale to introduce someone ‘different’ as the new apprentice. I could see him trying to parse the phrase but he’s coloured in a way that wouldn’t cause offence, and failing. I put him out of his misery by shaking his hand; my rule of thumb is that if they don’t physically flinch from touching you, then eventually they’ll make the adjustment.

Ok. Enough of the quoting (I think). I’m just trying to show why the books are such a joy to read. The plot is good, too, but it’s hard to say too much without major spoilers, and so  I’ll refrain. If you’re not interested in reading the book, a synopsis would be no use to you, and if you are you don’t want the plot spoiled.

The one negative thing I have to say is that the novel could have used a continuity check, preferably one that aligned with Rivers of London. There are some odd incongruities, most so vague that it’s hard to put your finger on what feels wrong, and some cases of things being explained in the wrong order, so to say. A fact being presented in such a way that you feel you must have missed a connection piece of narrative, only for that connecting piece to show up a little later. It may even be deliberate, but it dosn’t work. Not for me, anyway.

However, on the whole the books are so good that it’s easy to forgive the few flaws. Now on to Whispers Underground!

Rivers of London – Ben Aaronovitch

Rivers_of_LondonRivers of London has been on my list for a while, not least because the husband has read and enjoyed all four of the PC Peter Grant books that have been published so far, and thus they have been available to me for a while. Towards the end of last week I found myself unenthused with the books I’d been planning to read during Bout of books, and someone, somewhere mentioned Aaronovitch, and it occurred to me that as we are going to London in just a few weeks, this might just be the perfect time to read them.

In one way it certainly was, Aaronvitch has his story firmly grounded in place and reading this without imminent plans of visiting the city would be frustrating, to say the least.

In Rivers of London PC Peter Grant is coming to the end of his probationary period and is hoping to be assigned to real detective work. His friend, and crush, Lesley May is at the same point in her career. The wikipedia entry sums up their superior officers’ view of the two neatly: Lesley is «expected to go far», Peter is «expected to do paperwork». That is, until they are on watch to guard a murder scene from the general public, and while Lesley pops off to buy coffee and Peter meets a ghost who claims to have witnessed the murder. When their assignments are handed out, Peter finds himself assigned to a generally studiously ignored branch of the Met, the section that deals with magic and the supernatural. His superior officer, Detective Chief Inspector Thomas Nightingale has been the sole employee of this section, and Peter finds himself sworn in as the first apprentice wizard in fifty years, and lodged in The Folly, the section’s headquarters, which is clearly dimensioned for a rather larger contingent.

There follows a tale of riotous rebellion and magic, where Peter finds himself trying to solve two very different «cases». One is the murder that starts the book off and those that follow in a grisly, yet inventive, serial killing spree, the other is a conflict between Mother and Father Thames, the river gods, and their children (the tributaries) and entourage.

Aaronvitch draws on history, mythology and folklore, picking both famous and obscure pieces and sewing them neatly together to form a coherent whole which spellbinds the reader (well, this reader, anyway). There are explicit, if ironic, echoes of Dr Who (which Aaronvitch has written for) and Harry Potter, but I was also reminded of Neil Gaiman’s Neverwhere and of Jasper Fforde’s novels, the latter especially in the way Aaronvitch’s minor characters all beg for a google search. Take Isis, also known as Anna Maria de Burgh Coppinger, wife of Father Thames’ son Oxley: Google her, and you find that there is probably at least another novel there, just in her life story. I love this stuff. And then you have the famous dudes:

Beyond the booth, flanked by two neoclassical pillars, was a marble statue of a man dressed in an academic gown and breeches. He cradled a mighty tome in one arm and a sextant in the other. His square face held an expression of implacable curiosity, and I knew his name even before I saw the plinth, which read: Nature and nature’s laws lay hid in night; God said ‘Let Newton be’ and all was light. Nightingale was waiting for me by the statue. ‘Welcome to the Folly,’ he said, ‘the official home of English magic since 1775.’ ‘And your patron saint is Sir Isaac Newton?’ I asked. Nightingale grinned. ‘He was our founder, and the first man to systemise the practice of magic.’ ‘I was taught that he invented modern science,’ I said. ‘He did both,’ said Nightingale. ‘That’s the nature of genius.’

The inclusion of Newton is another thing I like about Aaronvitch’s universe, though magic is magic Peter takes the scientific approach, and the answers he comes up with seem to confirm his instincts; even magic depends on physical laws.

I like Peter Grant. He’s a good guy, and may even have the makings of a good cop, even if he is too easily distracted. I like Lesley May, too, and I especially like how Peter and Lesley are portrayed as friends. Even if there is an element of «this might progress to more than friends at some point», you still get the feeling that they are friends first and foremost and that they will remain so whether progression happens or not.

Then there’s the language, and the linguistic relation to time and place:

Neither of us could face the horrors of the kitchenette that morning, so we found shelter in the station canteen. Despite the fact that the catering staff were a mixture of compact Polish women and skinny Somali men, a strange kind of institutional inertia meant that the food was classic English greasy spoon, the coffee was bad and the tea was hot, sweet and came in mugs.

There’s plenty for a hopeless anglophile to «squee» about, there is wit and dry humour and there is, occasionally, something akin to slapstick. There are blink-and-you-miss-them cultural references by the score.

Would it kill us to have an official branch of government that handled the supernatural?’ ‘A Ministry of Magic?’ I asked. ‘Ha-bloody-ha,’ said Tyburn.

Where the novel falls short is in emotional engagement. Yes, I like Peter, and I certainly root for him, and I am gripped to the point of considering sneaking off to a quiet corner at work to polish off the last 50 or so pages when the bus ride yesterday morning proved too short for the task. However, the perfect book is the book that puts me in the emotional quandry of wanting to get to the end to see what happens but also wanting the book to last forever. Rivers of London fullfills the first, but not the second. I will allow that there is a chance that I will feel differently at the end of book four, when the prospect of having to wait for another installment starts looming large. I’ll get back to you on that. I’ve already started on book two.

Aaronovitch has a blog: Temporarily Significant, and there is also a website for the series: The Folly.

———————

Så vidt jeg kan se har ingen norske forlag (eller svenske, for den saks skyld) grepet fatt i Ben Aaronvitchs bøker. Det er synd, for selv om en forkjærlighet for London og Britisk humor, historie og mytologi sannsynligvis er et pluss for lesere av disse bøkene er det jo ikke slik at sånne preferanser nødvendigvis følges av engelskkunnskaper gode nok til å lese firehundresiders romaner i orginal. Oppfordringen er klar: Oversett disse!

The Ocean at the End of the Lane – Neil Gaiman, and a giveaway

gaiman_oceanA new novel by Neil Gaiman? Don’t mind if I do.

Jeg har en kopi av den norske oversettelsen å gi bort, se under anmeldelsen for detaljer.

I expected to love this book. I also expected to have a hard time putting it down once I started reading. The latter turned out to be true, the former? Unfortunately not so much. Which is not to say I hated it, either, I’m more on a ‘Meh’ sort of level.

A man returns to his childhood town for a funeral, but between the sevice and the social event afterwards he takes a drive to clear his head and finds himself at the site of his childhood home. He continues down the lane to the very end, where the Hempstocks still live, like they did when he was a child. He is plunged into memories, and the reader follows him through the recollection of something that happened when he was seven years old, when a suicide woke a creature that did not belong in this world.

Gaiman skillfully draws his characters, the three Hempstock women (Lettie is only 11 in appearance, but hardly a child) are indeed worth the aquaintance and who can resist a seven year old friendless boy who loves Gilbert & Sullivan and who lives mostly through books?

I went away in my head, into a book. That was where I went whenever real life was too hard or too inflexible. I pulled down a handful of my mother’s old books, from when she was a girl, and I read about schoolgirls having adventures in the 1930s and 1940s. Mostly they were up against smugglers or spies or fifth columnists, whatever they were, and the girls were always brave and they always knew exactly what to do. I was not brave, and I had no idea what to do.

(Page 58-59.) The book also deftly plays on the fine line between reality and fantasy in a child’s life, and raises questions about memory, how we remember and why no two people will agree on exactly what happened when a story is retold.

So why am I left unenthused? I suspect some explanation is to be found in my dislike of ‘horror’. The creature the children encounter is of the insiduous kind that easily triggers nightmares, and that, more than a real interest in the characters, was what kept me turning the pages. I needed the horror to be put to rest. It may also have contributed to my lack of engagement, I think I probably disengage emotionally from stories like these out of self-defence, if I don’t get involved it is less scary.

So perhaps I should say: «Mr. Gaiman, it’s not you, it’s me.»

———————————

Jeg fikk en epost fra Vendetta forlag med spørsmål om jeg hadde lyst på en kopi av den norske oversettelsen. Denne gangen sa jeg fra på forhånd at jeg kom til å lese boka på engelsk og lodde ut det norske eksemplaret, og siden det var greit for dem fikk jeg boka i posten. Jeg stusser riktignok litt over «innsalget» fra forlaget i eposten:

den mest tilgjengelige og litterære boken han har kommet med så langt (…) Det er ikke fantasy denne gangen så denne treffer nok flere lesere.

Ikke fantasy? Har vi lest samme bok?

At den er tilgjengelig stemmer kanskje, men jeg synes jo de tidligere bøkene er særdeles tilgjengelige også, Neverwhere, f.eks., og «litterær»? Tja. Hva betyr det? Både Anansi Boys og American Gods krever mer av leseren i form av kunnskap om myter og religion (for å få fullt utbytte, i alle fall), er ikke metalitteratur «litterært»?

gaiman_havetDen norske utgaven heter Havet i enden av veien, og er oversatt av Stian Omland. Kompetent gjort, forsåvidt. For eksempel la jeg merke til at «little pitcher» er oversatt, helt korrekt, med «lille gryte», til tross for at det ikke er noe mer som tilsier at vi har med et idiom å gjøre enn de to små ordene (på engelsk heter det «little pitchers have big ears», på norsk sier vi «små gryter har også ører»). Men det er ikke alltid norsken flyter like elegant som Gaimans engelsk. Og når Lettie slår over i dialekt (eller sosiolekt om du vil), som hun gjør innimellom,  er det i  den norske versjonen ingen merkbar endring.

«Asked you to name yourself, I did. I en’t heard more’n empty boasts of age and time. Now, you tell me your name and I en’t asking you a third time.» She sounded more like a country girl than she ever had before.

(Side 41.) Sammenlignet med:

«Jeg ba deg si hva du heter, jeg. Og så hører jeg ikke annet enn tomt skryt om alder og tid. Så si hva du heter, og aldri om jeg spør deg for tredje gang.» Hun lød mer som en bondejente enn noen gang før.

(Side 47.) I orginalen plasserer dia-/sosiolekten Lettie i et landskap og på en rangstige i samfunnet, men samtidig er den med på å forsterke følelsen av at hun ikke er det hun ser ut til. Den dybden går tapt i oversettelsen. I tillegg har jeg problemer med flyten i Letties andre setning, «og aldri om jeg» måtte jeg lese flere ganger før setningen ga mening. Det virker som en unødvendig komplikasjon av syntaksen. Kan jeg få foreslå «Jeg spør ikke igjen»? (Eller til og med «Jeg spø’kke igjen», så får vi avgentrifisert språket litt også.)

Vel. Om du fortsatt har lyst til å lese Havet i enden av veien, etter min kritikk av både boka og oversettelsen (førstnevnte har utallige andre rost opp i skyene, da, så det er muligens bare meg det er noe galt med) har jeg altså et eksemplar å gi bort. Noe annet smågodt havner det sikkert også oppi pakka. Alt du trenger å gjøre for å delta er å kommentere på dette innlegget, denne gangen vil jeg gjerne at du forteller meg hvilken bok du ønsker deg til jul i kommentaren. Jeg trekker på søndag kveld klokken 20:00, for da kan jeg få sendt pakka før postens frist den 16. så den når fram til julaften.