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.
posted by Phantom78 at 8:35 AM
6 Comments:
I'd love to do that to corrupt politicians the world over.
Yeah, yeah very nice PK, so does that mean all the head decapitations dreams that you'd had was all of the evil politicians? :P
On another note, what do you guys think of what Dracula said about the nature of man being evil?
My thinking is that choosing to survive and prosper is just basic animal instinct, I mean we don't think predators preying on young and the old as being evil or sick... its just simple instinct.... man also has this instinct.
However, man also has other capacities other animals do not, and there is where the burden of choice is on our shoulders.
Conclusion? I am leaning more towards agreeing with Dracula but not in totality... that is why I lock my doors ;)
I think the nature of most humans are stupid. Some are smart.
Most aren't evil but those that are evil and stupid are dangerous. The most dangerous ones are those that are evil and smart. Fear them.
Most aren't evil but those that are evil and stupid are dangerous.
Kind of reminds me of those olden days' cartoons where the villains were atrociously stupid. But... that's what made them so fun to watch.
Goodness will always triumph over evil, just takes more time for wonders to happen, that's all. ;)
"Human history is full of evil deeds, and maybe we ought to think of them with tears, not fascination" - good one.
my tots, most dangerous/evil in existence - human.
Sudah chup lup ke?
Post a Comment
<< Home