Reader's reaction

Reader’s reaction to The immortal Part :

The immortal Part is a fascinating read.   It was alive and captivating from beginning to end with skilled use of language; an ability to create vivid scenes and real life characters.  This is a wonderfully crafted novel.  It is both dramatic and sensitive and utilizes a lifetime of personal experience.  You incorporate suspense and horrors that add a special dimension to the story.  The subplots kept my interest in anticipation of ‘what could happen next ?’  The writer keeps weaving the fabric of the story to the very end with the finding of the rumored treasure, and also his acceptance that true love doesn’t demand perfection.

(Ronald Miller, Aurora, Canada) 

Film review : Lolita

Adrian Lyle’s Lolita is a remake of Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita. I have a lot of admiration for Stanley Kubrick, but any artist, and even any great artist, can have his or her bad days. Kubrick’s Lolita is flawed in many ways. First of all, it’s not as close to the novel as Adrian Lyle’s. 

In the book, Lolita is 14 years’ old. In the Kubrick film, she is clearly older. She is also a whimsical, superficial creature. Her heart is as cold as an ice cube. As for the professor, played by the talented James Mason, he is a hard and selfish man attracted only by Lolita’s body. Lolita’s mother does not exactly bring out the sympathy of the viewer either. So, in fact, not a single one of the main characters is likeable. As a spectator, we cannot identify with any of those self-centered persons. 

By contrast, the actress playing Adrian Lyle’s Lolita was really only 14 during the making of the film. You can feel the difference right away. The professor, played by Jeremy Irons, is attractive and basically nice. He does not only lust after Lolita : he genuinely loves her, and this love is a torture for him. It is like a curse in a Greek tragedy. 

If we add to this the quality of the camera work in every take, the impeccable choice and sharpness of colors and picture framings, Adrian Lyle’s Lolita is a true masterpiece, compared to the disappointing flop of a great film director.

Book review : Madeleine.

First, the bad news : 

 

1.   This novel needs editing. Some sentences hardly make sense at all.

2.   Dialogues need ironing out. At the end of a question or a reply, there is no need repeatedly to mention a name, especially when only two characters are involved.

3.   Emma Nichols does her best to describe the emotions that Claude and Madeleine experience, but somehow she does not manage to make the reader share these emotions.

4.   The same goes for surroundings : we are aware of their existence, but we don’t feel much.

Had the novel been told in the first person, with either Claude or Madeleine as the narrator, it might have touched the reader more effectively.

Now, for the good news :

The story includes some key elements of a good novel :

1.   Clear characterization.

2.   Evolution of the characters. None of them is quite the same at the start and at the end of the novel. Madeleine’s mother becomes less judgmental ; Gustave, following his car accident, turns into a more decent human being. The whole village, in fact, comes around to accepting Claude, as do her fellow workers.

3.   Interesting twists in the plot. There is Gustave’s accident, of course and the return of Raoul which introduces an element of menace and dread. Other twists, like the arrival of Raoul’s first wife, revive the overall optimism. 

There is a certain cinematic slant in the conduct of the story ; and because it takes place at Christmas time, I can see Madeleine being turned into one of these Christmas movies that are so popular on television these days. I sincerely hope it happens.