Thoughts on The House of the Spirits:
Wow, this is a weird book. Definitely a strange change of pace from our last few books. With that said, I really enjoy the story and how intriguing the characters are. The only main character that I don't like is Esteban Trueba as he is a disgusting monster. Typically I'll play devil's advocate and fight for less favorable characters (see Kichijiro) but Trueba is awful, plain and simple.
The changes between chapters in passage of time and the narrator(s) is a little bit confusing at times, but I think they add to the sort of mystery or intrigue of the story. I feel that the book wouldn't be the same if it held one continuous chronology or one form of narrative.
I think Allende took a very strange approach in speaking on social issues like sexuality, politics, class system, etc. What's strange about it is that she doesn't avoid any of these issues, but she doesn't applaud or condemn any of them, either. So I'm definitely curious as to what exactly the scope or purpose of the book was when she wrote it. Hopefully that's something we can figure out in the coming weeks, whether by class discussion or continued reading..
Edit: I commented on Moriah and Rachael's posts.
Wow, this is a weird book. Definitely a strange change of pace from our last few books. With that said, I really enjoy the story and how intriguing the characters are. The only main character that I don't like is Esteban Trueba as he is a disgusting monster. Typically I'll play devil's advocate and fight for less favorable characters (see Kichijiro) but Trueba is awful, plain and simple.
The changes between chapters in passage of time and the narrator(s) is a little bit confusing at times, but I think they add to the sort of mystery or intrigue of the story. I feel that the book wouldn't be the same if it held one continuous chronology or one form of narrative.
I think Allende took a very strange approach in speaking on social issues like sexuality, politics, class system, etc. What's strange about it is that she doesn't avoid any of these issues, but she doesn't applaud or condemn any of them, either. So I'm definitely curious as to what exactly the scope or purpose of the book was when she wrote it. Hopefully that's something we can figure out in the coming weeks, whether by class discussion or continued reading..
Edit: I commented on Moriah and Rachael's posts.
Comments