The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern

5
A highly engaging and slightly confusing book that follows a circus in which two magicians are involved in a competition neither really understands. This has to be one of my favourite books this year. It's been a while since I've read a new fantasy book (part of a series or otherwise) that has kicked in my obsessive-reader streak. I just could not pull myself away.

First off, the circus is amazing. I've only been to a few circuses in my life, but they don't even compare to the Le Cirque des Rêves (Circus of Dreams) and I wonder if I've ever enjoy a circus after being transported to this one. Reading about it is immersive in a way I can't describe. I could smell the caramel, see every performance and every performer, feel the energy of the crowd. I can't remember being so transported by a book, and for that alone I would give it five stars. Interspersed with the actual plot, we are told about the experiences in various tents and the things we see. It helps to break from the plot and make the character transitions seem smoother.

But then we have the actual story. As I said, it two magicians in a kind-of contest (all is revealed later on in the book) and the circus is the venue for this. So everything in the circus is the spawn of their imagination, their dreams. Every tent, in its own way, implies something about the maker, hints at the plot and present feelings. I'm reading into it, I admit, but it seems all so cleverly interwoven, much like the circus itself.

Yet I think the characters are what make it interesting. We have our magicians, Marco and Celia. They are designed to opposites (that's why they were chosen as the competitors) so they match, even compliment, each other perfectly. It means we get two distinct voices and views, and two ways of seeing the same world. And their magic is wrought in different ways. Hers physical, his with charms and symbols; he is more considering, she more impulsive. It amazing. We also have Bailey, who story we jump into, as well as characters like Mr. Barris, Poppet and Widget, Tsukiko, Chandress, Prospero (Hector), Mr. Alexander, The Burgess Sisters, Friedrick Thiessen, Isobel and others I've likely forgotten. They make the book amazing, and each one is distinct in my mind and has their own story. I can't express how pleasant it is to read so many connected characters but not once become confused.

The Circus itself becomes almost a character too. Almost. I'm always aware it's a circus, but it has personality and is so well loved and talked about as though alive that one cannot help but consider it a character also.

Their is also romance in the book. It becomes integral, but the book does not become a complete romance, which I appreciated. It was fantasy and stuck to that like glue to paper. Certain events pre-empted this, and I think anyone could have guessed this would happen a quarter of the way into the book when Marco first sees Celia. And guess what? No love triangles! Huzzah! (You could argue otherwise, but I disagree. I never believed that romance.) It was much more interesting to see them interacting with each other and facing problems in their own relationship.

It's also set in the late 1800s, early 1900s. On one hand this was great for the lack of technology, the clothes, the atmosphere, and the people themselves. It's also handy since it meant it wasn't based at a time when there were huge events happening in history. There were events, but none so far reaching they could affect the story or have the characters being split. This story isn't about conflict, I feel. It seems odd since it's a competition, but I think it was more about working together than against each other.

I'm going to say something bad because I have to, but this didn't really bother me: I found some of the explanations hard to follow. Sometimes they were just concerning magic and its mechanics, but I expected to understand more than I did. I had to just move past it, but I didn't expect to understand. Part of the magic (pardon the pun) of this book was that we didn't know everything. The mystery was alluring, and the discovery sweeter for it; regardless of the comprehension. That's why I wasn't bothered by the mystery around the contest. This books hinges on not knowing anything, and we are made to get used to this idea very early on.

The novel is a treasure of a book and of a story. Never would I dare part with it. And it's wondrous element is well suited to the Christmas season. Buy this for yourself for Christmas. By it for anyone who loves fantasy, or someone who's faith in romance in a book is fading. My adoration for this book cannot be put into words; I am a rêveur through-and-through. Buy it, love it, but don't thank me.

I think this has earned the highly acclaimed spot as My Favourite Book of the Year.


After publishing/writing this, I've found a site for people interested in the books to kind of experience and live the books again. It's okay, but slow-going; many people would hate it. Link.

Friday Hop Six

Q: In light of 11.11.11 and Veteran’s Day tell us about your favorite soldier and how he or she is saving the world. Fictional or real life.

I might be strange and hated for saying this, but I disagree with war in every way. I cannot accept that two world powers have what are effectively their 'underlings' die for them in conflicts. If people have a stake in the war, fine, but I think that should be kept under personal conflicts. And if they do it for money then I have to say that is regrettable: that a man or woman's government cannot provide jobs enough for their constituents and so put them to work fighting and risking their lives. I know people who, being 17, want to join the army, navy, air force or otherwise come the end of school- but I think it will lead to a pointless loss of life. The repition of wars throughout time show how we are a violent race and that we must amend this and stop this loss of life. Because whenever one war stops, there is short period of so-called 'peace time' before soldiers are called on again.

If I offend, then I am sorry. I'm intensely pacifist and only just about believe in self-defense. It's my problem, since I know why war is necessary and a symptom of the age or however you say it. Maybe I'm just 'too young' to appreciate what I am saying. Because we all know that come 18, we see the world with perfect clarity.

So I don't have a favourite soldier, in the intended sense of the word. It's a remembrance day to remind us that al these people died. If I can take anything from it, I take away the horror and pernicious nature of war as something that I cannot praise or approbate. Sorry. I actually half-considered not saying anything, but what is a blog if not a way to globally express free speech.

Love-Hate Relationship: Which characters from a book do you love to hate?

Hurgh. This is hard. Can I get back to you? No...

I think I have to say I hate Frodo with a passion from the Lord of the Rings. Okay, I've only read one, but I've seen the films and I know how he distrusts Sam despite his unwavering loyalty. I feel like screaming at him "People like this are rare enough- don't go shattering his faith you little hairy-footed cretin!" Or something along those lines: I'd probably be more hysterical and be incoherent. But I understand he's my protagonist and he does some good in the end. I kind of think I just like him because I like Sam.

Also, I love Richard III from Shakespeare's play. He is such a cold-hearted, hateful man, but he's so clever and- when rightly played or read- also funny in a dark way. I know I should hate him, but he's so well done that we're endeared to him despite our better judgement. The same goes for MacBeth. I think he's a power-hungry lunatic (with a wife who is more so), but when he makes sense then I like him and can understand him. The Bard was a great writer, since I could probably find one character like this in all his work, had I read it all. As it is, I've read two and seen maybe 5 or 6. Good ol' William.

The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood

What is she doing with her hands?

4

The Handmaid's Tale is a dystopia set in a world with high infertility meaning Handmaid's are forcibly employed as, to all intents and purposes, Mistresses, but with the express wish to have children; thereby making them describable as choice-less surrogate mothers.

This is the first time I've read anything by Atwood and I was incredibly impressed with her writing style. Two pages in, I'd realised that I'd been so enraptured in the writing that I haven't even paid much attention to what happened. This was a trend which continued at other points, often meaning I had to re-read entire chapters. But I think it was worth it, since one so rarely finds something so well written and enrapturing merely because the text is beautiful. Also, the environment and lives of those around our protagonist- which were bleak, depressing and abominable in many ways- seemed almost surreally pristine. I'd compare it to ice since everything seemed so perfect, but you knew it was cold world, with sharp edges, and viable to smash in an instant.

I was also pleasantly surprised with the world itself, since it wasn't a predictable dystopia. I know there are other dystopias based around infertility and the way society combats it, but this was published in 1985, hardly the height of dystopian publishing. Also, this world was much more freshly a dystopia. Though I probably have read one, I can't remember a dystopia where the story began such a short time after the establishment of this society. Rather than a protagonist who was told stories and recalls them as hope and ideals, Offred (our main character, so named because she is the 'mistress' Of-Fred) remembers the time and can describe how she felt. It also adds the interesting element of how true is what she tells us? In such dire conditions, better times are always remembered as better than they were.

The most interesting thing about the book though was the idea of: Freedom from rather than freedom to. This society defends itself saying there are restrictions in order to guarantee safety. You may not be able to buy alcohol, but there is no (okay, small) chance of you being stolen from. It's an interesting idea, and I think anyone would pause for a moment reading that, since who are we to say what is better? We live in a world were freedom to is the only possibility without open dictatorship, but freedom from is also a powerful thing. I would always choose the former (to) but I live in a freedom to society so I am biased. Having freedom to you can choose to live so as to have freedom from, but living in a world of freedom from you'll never have true freedom to do whatever you want and face consequences as they arise. The book suggests that Freedom comes at a price, and that society reached a point where that price was too high.

I liked as well how the whole dystopian society was explained. Basically, it was power grab and the more rigid application of a Patriarchy, given women no rights. It suggests there was response to feminism much more violent to our own. Eventually a military group faked a terrorist attack on the President and Congress and then took control- indefinitely. The reason it works was that this was done in such a short time so anyone who knew and wanted to stop it wouldn't be able to: it would already be established and have the power to 'silence' revolutionaries. It then goes on to indoctrinate women, who lose all the rights as free citizens. It presents men as overly sexualised to the point that they want to copulate merely at the sight of the women. I'm not explaining very well, but every new stage of the dystopia we learn is a logical continuation of the last stage.

So I really liked this. I like that my first foray into Atwood's books has been so successful and I hope to read her again. I think I'll also point out that the tone of the book is never really happy, and I can't remember once when it was hopeful: so don't read this if you're looking for a happy read.