The Historian
I started The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova sometime in October 2005, only to finish it a couple of weeks ago. It is perhaps one of the longest endeavour in book reading for me, although the time is a far cry compared to the 10 years that the author spent in writing the book - not the least bit unenjoyable.
Although there will be readers who will beg to differ, I am sure, I find The Historian a insightful and entertaining story. Certain parts of it can be really slow paced, especially the descriptions of places and people involved as the story unfolds. For me that is one of the magic of this book - it makes me want to know more about places like Romania and Hungary and what not - but not to the torturing effects like that of Tolkien's style.
And I really did not know that Dracula was indeed a real person, though I have had some hints of such a character leaving as a recluse in Transylvania. The real legend is in fact a prince, and bore the infamous name Vlad Tepes, meaning Vlad the Impaler. If you think drinking human blood is gross, wait till you read what the real prince of darkness did during his reign in Wallachia. (Note to PK - you'll love it, you sick bas** ;P)
But what attracted me to Kostova's writing style is that the story is being told consecutively in three different periods of time - the narrator's, her father's, and her father's mentor, spanning a great gap of 4 decades, and how they all seem to converge towards the end. On the other hand, very much like The Shadow of the Wind, what really caught my attention about this book in the very first place is the slight hint of the narrator's relationship with her father, and later with her mother. Unfortunately, I learnt that later that other more engaging events had overshadowed that element, which was under-developed anyway.
In the story, Prof. Rossi said, "Human history is full of evil deeds, and maybe we ought to think of them with tears, not fascination", only to be compounded by Dracula's own words, "History has taught us that the nature of man is evil, sublimely so".
To you, my dear and perceptive reader, perhaps this is worth a ponder.
Although there will be readers who will beg to differ, I am sure, I find The Historian a insightful and entertaining story. Certain parts of it can be really slow paced, especially the descriptions of places and people involved as the story unfolds. For me that is one of the magic of this book - it makes me want to know more about places like Romania and Hungary and what not - but not to the torturing effects like that of Tolkien's style.
And I really did not know that Dracula was indeed a real person, though I have had some hints of such a character leaving as a recluse in Transylvania. The real legend is in fact a prince, and bore the infamous name Vlad Tepes, meaning Vlad the Impaler. If you think drinking human blood is gross, wait till you read what the real prince of darkness did during his reign in Wallachia. (Note to PK - you'll love it, you sick bas** ;P)
But what attracted me to Kostova's writing style is that the story is being told consecutively in three different periods of time - the narrator's, her father's, and her father's mentor, spanning a great gap of 4 decades, and how they all seem to converge towards the end. On the other hand, very much like The Shadow of the Wind, what really caught my attention about this book in the very first place is the slight hint of the narrator's relationship with her father, and later with her mother. Unfortunately, I learnt that later that other more engaging events had overshadowed that element, which was under-developed anyway.
In the story, Prof. Rossi said, "Human history is full of evil deeds, and maybe we ought to think of them with tears, not fascination", only to be compounded by Dracula's own words, "History has taught us that the nature of man is evil, sublimely so".
To you, my dear and perceptive reader, perhaps this is worth a ponder.