Category: Book Reviews (Page 3 of 3)

Shoko’s life from the beginning seems to be a story of survival and strong will.  When she and her brother Taro are kidnapped by the nanny, it looks like their little lives would be cut short, but Shoko prevails and becomes the heroine of her own life, as well as Taro’s.  Shoko seems to never truly have control of her life as a woman in shadow of post-WWII Japan, but she kind of does.  She may not have the education she craves but she still takes the opportunities she has to leave her small town and work to make her own money (and help support the family).  As a woman, her society expects her to accommodate her life for men.  First she must change her life when her father changes their societal status and becomes a priest.  Then she is the sole provider of money so that her brother Taro can get an education.  She is then the forced (by Taro and her father) to flee Japan with a baby and with an American husband.  Her husband then forces her to keep Mike’s conception a secret.  Shoko embraces America and leaves Japanese culture and language behind to accommodate her husband and children.  Shoko does not return to Japan because Taro cannot forgive her “choices”.  Shoko also doesn’t return to Japan because of her American husband, Charlie.  Shoko’s son Mike is a disappointment…she raised him in the Japanese way but in America so he is a clash of two cultures.  Although, Shoko is bound by the constraints of her Japanese culture, she still prevails after time heals their family secrets.  She is the strength of her family.

Mike is Shoko’s oldest child and biggest secret.  I felt that Shoko tended to treat him with more care than she did with Sue because of his gender and possibly to make up for his real father’s death.  Shoko gave Mike free reign of his life when he actually needed more control.  She needed to be more controlling with him versus giving him freedom like she thought Japanese boys needed.  Mike is an anomaly because he is 100% Japanese but his mentality is completely American. It seems like the whole family has given up on Mike and has no hopes for his future.

I feel that Charlie knew that Shoko was pregnant with another man’s child from the beginning but that his love and admiration for her was always genuine; therefore, he didn’t care about Shoko’s past.  I do believe that he never wanted to control her but that society created the man versus woman dichotomy.  I do think that in their actual household, Shoko ruled the roost.  Charlie liked Shoko’s control over the household and accepted anything that she wanted.  He embraced her culture and wanted to keep her life from Japan alive for her in America.  I think he was truly in love with her from the beginning.

Taro is a complex character because he owed so much to Shoko (his life, education, family) and yet could not forgive her for marrying an American soldier (even though it was his father’s wish).  I almost feel that he used Shoko as the scapegoat for the ruining of Japan.  She was the example of the old Japan relinquishing itself to American culture literally and symbolically.  Shoko saves Taro’s life when he is an infant but pride prevents him from forgiving her.  His forgiveness doesn’t come easy but it seems like he was ready to salvage their relationship and he seemed like he missed her.  I think that he never wanted to banish her but that his stubbornness prevented him from embracing anything foreign.

The only man that gives Shoko a choice and a chance at true freedom is Ronin.  It is ironic that he is what ends up binding her to a life of secrecy.  Because of his lack of a societal foothold, Ronin had no prejudices for gender or rankings.  He saw America as his opportunity to shed his label and to make opportunity happen for him, and sequentially Shoko.  His true love for her was so sweet and innocent.

Sue and Helena are Shoko’s hope for the future.  Isn’t it ironic that they are women and not the typical expectation of hope in Japanese culture or even American culture?  These two ladies are only ½ and ¼ Japanese but embody more of the Japanese culture and fully embrace its history.  It seems like Sue has always wanted to be Japanese but that she was hindered by her mother and by society.  I loved that she embraces her family’s past and that she travels to Japan and helps her mother unravel all of the family secrets.  She is brave, like Shoko, and is passing her bravery on to her daughter.  Sue may have been the “sleeper” of the entire book.

This story reminded me of stories from my family’s history where poverty and circumstance really determined your “Lot in life”.  So many dreams of education and success are doused by the reality of your place in the world.  While some have all and continue to do so, others have little and do what they can to better themselves…sometimes by a lot and sometimes by very little.  The expectations of our lives are mostly due to free will but are also determined by our opportunities.  It’s what we do with those opportunities that makes a difference.  It’s also a perspective on our acceptance of what is and finding satisfaction with the lives we live.

Is Taro ungrateful?  Is Taro selfish?  Or is he just playing to the expectation of Japanese culture?

Is culture and pride enough to hold a grudge?  Is this the only reason Taro cannot forgive Shoko’s pregnancy and American marriage?

Is Shoko the heroine?  Is Sue the heroine?  Why?

Why is there more complexity to Sue’s character than Mike’s?

Why is Mike so underwhelmed by the news of his biological father?  Is his reaction in accordance with the news or with his personality?

Do the men in this book control Shoko to be cruel or because of how our cultures treat women and men?

What are similarities of the American and Japanese cultures?  Differences?

What are your thoughts on the anecdotes at the begging of each chapter?  Where you amused by the titles to the “fake” book chapters?

Do you feel constraints by your culture? Gender? Family?  What family issues do you relate to in this book?

Is this book about gender (man vs woman), culture (Japanese vs American) or family (Shoko vs Taro)?  What perspective do you feel was strongest?

P.S.

How to Be an American Housewife

The quotes form the fictitious book are hilarious.  Which was your favorite?  Mine were:

-“It is not advisable to teach your American-born children Japanese.  It will only confuse their language development…They are Americans and should learn only English, as Americans do. (page 200)”  In today’s political climate, it seems fitting that we are discussing immigration and refugees.  I am American born with Mexican heritage and I do speak fluent Spanish.  I do feel embraced by some and repelled by others.  Why is it that other countries “allow” citizens to speak several different languages and yet our “melting pot” looks negatively at it even in 2016?

-“Child-rearing in America is a good deal more callous and cold than in Japan.  Americans do not believe in letting the baby sleep with them, or carrying them all the time, the way a Japanese mother does.  They take a far more disciplinarian approach to child-raising than we do in Japan. (page 156)”  There are so many contradictory parenting approaches these days and this quote really articulates how Americans truly are different in their parenting skills.  With my first child, I tried to instill the strict baby sleeping schedules and no sleeping in the bed and not carrying him all of the time.  But with the birth of my second son, I really changed my tune.  Now they both are allowed in our bed and I hold them as much as possible.  I realized that the strictness was hard on all of us and now we have a more peaceful co-existence.

-“Getting used to American negativity can be difficult.  Americans do not politely defer or help you save face; they simply say, ‘No,’ loudly and emphatically.  Being aware of this phenomenon will help prevent shock. (page 38)”  This quote is hilarious because it is so true.  Why are we so rude?!  It is hard to see ourselves through others eye but I know that’s what other cultures think of us.  When we moved to Germany for our first military assignment, the one thing we were told was “Don’t act like an American!”  It did make living in a foreign country much more pleasant because we got along and understood their culture.

I hope that this book redeemed me from the January book and I hope that it met the criteria for a love themed month. 

This book was so magical with its twists in the story and its weaves through time.  The beginning proved a little difficult to understand the back and forth through time and the plethora of new characters being introduced but once I was able to sit in quiet to process the characters, I really enjoyed the plot and it was easier to understand everyone’s role in the story.  Plus, the theme of unrequited love is always beautiful and suspenseful in a heartbreaking way. 

We see the idea of unrequited love between Leo and Alma, Bruno and Alma, Alma and Misha, Bird and God, and Alma’s mother and Jacob Marcus.  There are a lot of misunderstandings and things left unsaid by the characters.  There are many moments where just one small change would have changed the story for the characters.  I think that the unrequited love theme also leads to a sub-theme of jealousy.  Jealousy, not in its mean spirited variety, but a more envious feeling and from the idea of being helpless in its manifestation of despair.  It’s the ever present idea of wanting someone to like you as much as you like them, but learning that they don’t or that they stopped.

I was most enthralled with the main story of Leo and Alma.  It was such a sweet story of young love hindered by war and distance.  This book really highlights a story of “what could have been” in a very poetic and solemn way.  Leo never gets his chance to live a life with Alma and his son like he envisioned.  But his heartache turned into a story that inspired other people to fall in love (present-day Alma’s parents).  Leo’s story is his tribute to his beloved and then becomes an account of his son’s true history.  Leo is the catalyst for the novel.  It’s his actions and inactions that keep the plot moving to its sad end. His love never comes to fruition. 

This was truly a love story that spans time and language.  It was a non-saccharine sweet love story that had historic relevance and was a plausible story for many immigrants back before texting and email.  When distance and time separate us, it is easy to see the disintegration of relationships.  Luckily, this book brought it all back full circle to remind us that love, grief, and compassion continue no matter how much time lapses.  

What did you think of Alma’s decision to stay in her marriage and not go with Leo?

Was Leo right in letting his son live his entire life never knowing his biological father?

What is the significance of Leo making a point of being “seen” everyday by someone? 

What did you think the purpose of present-day Alma was to the story?  Why couldn’t we have seen this perspective through her mother who was actually translating the story?

Why did Jacob Marcus seek an alias when getting The History of Love translated?  Did he really run a risk by being himself?

What was the most significant relationship besides Leo and Alma? 

Is the novel within The History of Love Leo’s tribute to Alma or a more generalized tribute to an ideal love?

Is the meaning of Alma’s name?  Is there any significance to why the name was never changed in its many translations?

Well…I am going to begin by apologizing to those of you that are not fans of the short story format.  I am one of those people.  I like short stories but having to read an entire book of them can be difficult to garner enthusiasm to finish the book.  This is a lesson learned for me and hopefully I will not introduce another one any time soon.

On a positive note, the short stories were funny!  Some more than others but they all had wit, sarcasm, and cynicism…some of my favorite sentiments.  If I were to pick a favorite, it has to be “The Rematch”.  This story taken from the fable of the Tortoise and the Hare is so well written that you can imagine that this is the follow up to the original Aesop’s Fable The Tortoise and the Hare.  Who hasn’t wondered what happened to the Hare after his devastating loss to the Tortoise?  I really enjoyed that these two characters let the moment define them for the better and worse.  And I like that there is a story of redemption and also that it has a moral.  It teaches the lesson that we can be impetuous and cocky but if we learn the lesson we can be redeemed with hard work and concerted effort.  This was by far my favorite of all of the short stories.

My other top short stories include “Sophia”, “Kellogg’s” and “Never Fall in Love.” The story of “Sophia” was so cleverly written about a female sex robot.  Sophia was perfect in every way and, yet, he didn’t want her anymore once she showed emotion.  Currently, human nature does not allow for empathy and we find ourselves isolated by fear of others emotions, which does not allow us to have true relationships.  In “Kellogg’s”, my favorite statement is that he loved his parents but “I was a name-brand kid, and I was meant to have a name-brand life.”  We all feel like we don’t belong to the family that we grew up with.  We feel so different from them but we never act on it because eventually we turn into them.  This character refuses to be his parents and acts on his need to be different.  I enjoyed “Never Fall in Love” for its brevity and to-the-point message.  It is true that once we stop looking for something, it comes to us organically.

Although this is not one of my favorite books, I can appreciate the messages ironically delivered through these extremely short blurbs.  It’s not a format that I like and I think some of the messages could have been built into greater, longer stories. I admire the author’s ability to execute the stories but just wish there had been more of a driven plotline or an overreaching lesson captured throughout the stories.  Maybe a book of fables?

What did you think of the short story format?  Like? Dislike?

Which was your favorite story in the book?

What was your favorite sentiment throughout the book?

Would you have organized the stories differently?  How?

Could the author have combined the stories to make one fluid novel?  Was there a theme?

He is one of my favorite sitcom writers and you may recognize him as one of the writers (and actors) on the show The Office.  He is hilarious as a performer and as a writer.  I am looking forward to reading his book…hope you are too!

I will post my review on January 30th so lets get to reading this very funny book 😉

Happy 2016 y’all!

Wow, talk about thinking a book is one thing but it totally surprises you with a twist.  In the beginning, we automatically think this book is only about Lydia dying and who did it, but the plot thickens as we move towards a motive for her death.  There are so many details in this short little book and each one of them is devastatingly important to Lydia.

We are introduced to a pushy mother who is living out her dreams through her oldest daughter.  We have a father living out his social ineptitude through his oldest daughter.  And we have two siblings who are forgotten ad ignored, yet are fulfilling the parent’s desires without notice.  The pressures placed on Lydia by both of her parents are the undoing of this family.   I think this story truly provides reflection on how our individual actions affect others around us.  In this case, we have two selfish adults (the parents) who are clearly so self-involved with their own angst and self-pity that they have projected their insecurities onto a child.  We all want our children to do better than ourselves, but at what cost?  It seems that the parents have convinced themselves that for their one child to succeed, she must do everything they always wanted to do but couldn’t.

This book touches on racial divides, gender expectations and suicide.  It is so easy to see the domino effect of our actions and our choices.  This book has the actual end result of projecting our desires onto our children.  A very well written story with so much detail and dysfunction to make us all question our true motives with our children and the potential effects it will have on them.  Lydia states on page 225 that “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”  For every push towards something, there is a pull away from it.  And Lydia’s mother finally concedes that after seeing everything in Lydia’s room and knowing everything that she had wanted for Lydia, that it “had dragged Lydia underwater at last” (page 247).  A very solemn conclusion but a final realization of what they had done to her.

What was your first thought about Lydia’s death?  What are your initial thoughts about Lydia’s parents?

Who is responsible for Lydia’s death?  Is 16 too young to make your own decisions?  What age makes you responsible versus blaming actions on your parents?

What is your final assessment of Lydia’s parents?  Do you believe the parents will change knowing what truly happened to Lydia?  Why do you think that they both chose Lydia as their symbol of success and not Nath or Hannah?

How do you think their relationships with Nath will change?  How will it change with Hannah?

If you are a parent, how did this story affect you?  Did you reflect on your own relationship with your child/children? Where do you draw the line with your kids on pushing them to do better?

What do you think of the title of the book?

Nonetheless, this story was captivating from beginning to end.  We have a young boy telling a Holocaust story through his inexperienced eyes.  We don’t really know that it is a Holocaust story at first but little hints provided by the young boy, Bruno, lead us to that conclusion.  Even in the boys inability to say Auschwitz (he continually says “Out-With” even when corrected), shows the reader that Bruno has not been marred by the inexplicable things that are happening right outside his door.  Despite the evidence that something evil is happening in “Out-With”, Bruno remains untouched and unscathed.  Bruno is presented, time and time again with evidence of the happenings on the other side of the fence and yet he continues to live in his own bubble.  In Bruno’s discussions with Shmuel, Shmuel continually tells Bruno what is happening from his perspective and Bruno does not hear him.  Bruno continues to discuss his feasts, toys, three story house, etc.  These two boys are narrating their lives without expecting a response. Hey are each providing the pieces of the puzzle that links the two worlds at “Out-With” but they are not putting them together to help one another.  If they had listened, primarily Bruno to Shmuel, they may have understood what was actually happening there.

The message here can be as simple as a retelling of a Holocaust story or it can viewed as a deeper reflection of our current world and how, we as a society, can overlook the suffering of others by being self-involved and egocentric.  We can choose to be removed from crimes against humanity or we can choose to help.  Bruno could have stood up to the Lieutenant and claimed his friend, he could have told his family about Shmuel, and he or any of his family could have stopped Pavel’s beating.  Sometimes we don’t act until it’s too late and it directly affects us.

Do you think that that the fable presentation successfully helped to tell this story?  Would you have enjoyed it if it had been in a different literary format?

Why do you think that the author keeps Bruno naïve until the very end?  What does that say about society as a whole?  Is there a bigger message?

Why is Bruno blind to the concentration camp even when presented with Pavel and Shmuel?  What do they represent?

Why is Bruno’s family and Maria unaware of Bruno’s friendship?  Where do they think he goes to explore?

What do you think happened to Pavel? What happened to the Lieutenant?

What did you think of this story?  What message did you get from it?