One Book And One Week : كتاب واحد وأسب

Week Six: City of Thieves by Dave Benioff

36.8 pages per day

Nobel Prize winning author Albert Camus wrote ‘The Plague’ as an allegory to France’s suffering under the occupation of the German Nazis, and was published in 1947. His second novel (after the much more well-known story The Stranger), it was published a mere 5 years later.

Although it is not the first Camus book I have ever read, it was largely in part my favorite: Camus, even under the veil of an existentialist philosophy, managed to champion for humanity and human resistance in a relatively short, but also very powerful book. As usual, his prose was simply written, yet complex in thought. It was not, however, ‘easy’ to read-I found myself doubling back several times in an effort to digest the story’s whole meaning.

I gave this book a seven out of ten, but if the reader isn’t a big fan of heavy philosophical themes, they probably wouldn’t enjoy it nearly as much.

(Addendum: sorry for the brevity and lateness of this review…we were out of town and without internet for the fourth of July. It seems as though a lot of my quotes did not go through, so sorry to all the Camus fans! Eventually, I will get my tumblr issues sorted out. Until then, happy reading!)

Dear Readers:

I’m having a hard time picking out books already. There are just so many good ones to chose from, I would really love some reader submissions and suggestions. What’s your favorite book? What’s a book you think I should read? What’s a book you’d recommend to ANYONE? What’s a book you absolutely hate? (I’d love to write a scathing review.)

Send them in, please, and remember, as always-

Happy Reading!

(Sorry guys, I accidentally queued this post instead of posting it yesterday. My bad!)

Now Beginning: The Plague by Albert Camus

44 pages a day

Week Four: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead by Tom Stoppard [6/10]

Knighted British playwright Tom Stoppard’s fourth play, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, was three acts long and took me roughly three days to complete. I purposefully picked this play as a lighter work to read for week four, but though slender in size, this play is big in message. 

 As a general rule, I (as a reader) have a hard time finding plays as engrossing as novels. For one, often times there is less to interpret in a novel. The author reveals much more in description than a playwright would. Alternatively, in a play, so much is left to the interpretation of the actors, the director, and the viewer, it’s almost as if it’s a shell to be filled by the reader. When I was reading Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, there was no majesty to get lost in, no engrossing world. But maybe that’s part of the charm of the play itself.

An existentialist play with an absurdist design, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is designed to cause the spectator to question life, death, and the meaning of existence. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern themselves are bit characters in Shakespeare’s infamous tragedy, Hamlet, and Stoppard elected to give them a story of their own. Throughout the play, the characters of Hamlet weave in and out, affecting the destiny of these two characters-a destiny they have virtually no control over. They have no free will, no control, and can make virtually no choices.

The play was done well, and it achieved its ends almost perfectly. However, I give it a 6/10 purely based on enjoyability. It caused me to think, and it was speculative, but it echoed a lot of other plays I have already read (Waiting For Godot, for one), and novels such as The Stranger achieve the same end in a way that I, personally, find easier to read. Honestly, I’m of the opinion that plays should be watched, and not read, which is part of the reason for the lower rating.

Happy reading!