Month: March 2026

Categories
Valeria Luiselli

This book was so confusing.

So my first thoughts after reading this novel… was honestly “confusion”. I did not know what was going on for the first half of the novel, and even after finishing it, I still don’t feel like I fully understand what was going on. Things started to make sense after I watched the lecture video.

The book felt like 3 different novels happening at the same time, but not in a structured and organized way. Things are fragmented and then just thrown together. So we have her family life in Mexico, her past life in New York, and an entirely different character -> Owen. So instead of them being distinct stories, they start to mesh together till the point where you don’t even know who is who anymore. This was further supported in the lecture when the professor said that the book is more like two or three novels happening at the same time.

While reading this book, I kept thinking that I was reading something wrong because it felt like the story was jumping all over the place. That’s when I figured out that this was purposely done by the narrator. Like it took me soo long to realize that the stars meant a story change, haha.

Let’s start with Owen, who was probably one of the most confusing parts in the story. So Owen started out as someone the narrator was researching and obsessing over, but then he started narrating? And even met the female lead on a subway?? I honestly started to get nervous because I thought I had missed something big or I was reading the whole book wrong. But like I said earlier, I started to realize that this was an intentional part of the book.

Then we have her life in New York, which was definitely a lot more interesting than the cuts to her current life, or Owens’ life in Philadelphia. She was just living her life. Hanging out with random people, stealing random things, having fun. On the contrary, her family life in Mexico was the complete opposite, where she felt stuck.

I also really liked the importance of the subway in the story. As a sucker for sci-fi, it being a vessel where time, reality, and imagination overlap was quite interesting. The lecture even mentions how it’s like a haunted underworld.

Overall, although it was confusing, I really enjoyed the book. Especially after I started to know what was going on.

The question I had was, did the fragmenting of different stories mashed together help the book be more interesting or confusing?

Categories
Money to Burn

They indeed had the money to burn

This was by far the most interesting book I have read so far. (Maybe this was because I chose my books based on lengths, rather than which stories actually stood out to me ^o^). All the other readings I’ve done had me zoning out and re-reading paragraphs, but this one was able to be completed in a couple of short sessions – even though it was over 200 pages.

From the start, I liked how the author included little stories about the side characters and the events from their point of view. For example, about the shopkeeper, talking about how his day was slightly delayed, and that slight delay made him run into misfortune -> getting his car stolen. This is reminiscent of other movies and works where one story is told from multiple different perspectives. Which I very much enjoy.

One thing I noticed from the book is that, rather than the robbery itself, the author seems to focus more on what happened afterwards and how the “story” gets told. It was also interesting how the novel keeps reminding us about how it’s based on a true story with relevance to real-life events. Hard evidence from the past, such as police reports and newspapers were included, but at the same time, the author had to create conversations/ what the characters were specifically thinking. Furthermore, the lecture supports this by talking about how the author plays with the idea of truth. The story is represented as a factual recreation, but there are a lot of aspects that are fictional.

The criminals also be acting like they’re in a dramatic movie. Lowkey be doing too much. Especially during the siege at the end. They’re stuck in an apartment, surrounded all around by the police, EVERYONE watching. And of course, they choose the most logical action. To Burn The Money. I honestly did not see this coming, even though the title of the book was literally “Money to burn”. It was defenitly an interesting scene though. Where the criminals went through all that work to get said money just to burn it to ashes. But this idea made more sense to me after the professor explained how money is a social fiction. And when they burn it, they’re showing that it is, in fact, all just paper.

In the end. All the effort, the blood, the tears ended up leading to:

Nothing…. Overall a good read though

Question for the week is: Do you guys feel sympathy for any of the characters?

Categories
The trenchcoat

Watched

When I was first reading this book, I honestly did not know what to expect. I initially thought this was going to be something related to the main character being a spy (Hence the name trenchcoat). The story starts off with a dinner between friends. It’s a nice dinner with conversations between friends and peers. Good food, good wine, good-ish vibes. Although it seems like everything is polite/cozy. Underneath, you could feel some sort of tension where not everyone is relaxed. Like they were filtering and being cautious about everything they were saying. At first I thought that maybe it was the author’s writing style, but as I read more I realized the bigger picture. How it relates to the environment and the times they were currently living in.

And by environment, I mean in the heart of communist Romania. Where everyone and EVERYTHING is under strict surveillance. The secret police could be listening in and watching you at any time. This adds to the difficulity for people to trust anyone. One wrong companionship and your life could be at stake. It also got me thinking about what life would be like if we lived in a situation like that. There would probably be a lot of fear and constant worry whilst doing even the smallest things. But at the same time, it’s interesting that I think there would be more order between people and some people would start thinking more before they act. It’s personally hard to gauge whether or not there would be more conflict, though.

I also thought it was funny that the main conflict in the story was about a simple raincoat left after a dinner. The host finds a raincoat in the hallway that no-one else can explain. I mean, usually this wouldn’t be a big deal. The host would probably put it somewhere in a closet and forget about it till the owner shows up. But again, the times are different. They started off wondering if it belonged to a neighbour or a similar person but then this snowballed. What started off as simple curiosity quickly turned into suspisions and accusations. Maybe the coat belongs to someone who was secretly listening to them. Maybe it’s connected to the authorities. Maybe someone is being watched.

By the end, the story doesn’t actually explain the coat or who it belongs too. Everyone is still living in uneasiness and uncertainty. But I think this was the point. The characters live in a world where they can never be totally sure what’s happening behind the scenes.

Do you think the trenchcoat actually meant something, or were the characters just overthinking it

Categories
Hour of the Star

What a book

First of all, I will start by saying that the writing style of the book was defenitly confusing. Here I thought that this would be a super easy read cause it was only 77ish pages, but I was wrong. Especially at the beginning, I wasn’t really sure what the book was talking about. I had to reread parts multiple times, but as I got through more and more of the book, it was quite interesting. I don’t know exactly how to explain it, but it was cool that the author was giving his own thoughts during the book. Interrupting himself, questioning his own writing. You don’t see that in other books.

Macabea is also an “unusual” character, to the point where I think someone like her could not possibly exist. (Even though I know that the author did say that she was entirely made up). But usually in other books, the characters would be somewhat relatable, or I would know someone who had very similar character traits. Maybe I’m just being I’m just being biased. She’s sooo passive, even more than Natalia in the hour of the doves. There’s even a line that says she’s just “inhaling and exhaling”.  That hit me. She doesn’t really dream big, she doesn’t rebel, she doesn’t even fully understand how unhappy she is. She’s almost blank. And that blankness is uncomfortable. She’s always just  “happy.” no matter what life throws at her. In the beginning, I felt that this was a good way of living. Glass-half-full type beat. But the more I read, the more I realized that she’s lowkey just a pushover. She does not have a backbone at all.

I also noticed at times the narrator also be comparing herself to her. During parts of the book, he was talking in a way that made him seem better than her. Undermining her simplicity. But at other times seems almost jealous that she didn’t care about much. I guess this is a contrast between someone who knows too much and someone who knows nothing (Macabea).

When she skips work to meet the fortune teller, THINGS FINALLY TURN AROUND. Madam Carlota starts telling her things about her future. How she’s going to meet a foreign rich man who spoils her. She’s going to be happy. This is where she finally learns something called hope.

And then she dies…. What a tragic ending.

Question: Do you think that the Author did a good thing by telling giving her hope before she was killed? Or should she have given it to her straight.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet