Now & Then
William Corlett
346 p.

Abacus, 2007.
(First published 1995.)

Back cover blurb:

  Now, Christopher Metcalfe returns to his family home in Kent after the death of his father. Sorting through a box of memorabilia from his days at public school, Chris is suddenly confronted by the face that has haunted him for thirty years.

Then, as a callow fifth former enduring the excesses of a school system designed to run an Empire that no longer existed, a most extraordinary thing happened amid the thrashings and cross-country runs: he was seduced by Stephen Walker, a prefect two years his senior with whom he went on to share a brief but intensely passionate affair. Now, again, alone, approaching the age of fifty, Christopher is painfully aware of the price he paid for letting go, and resolves to find Stephen, and discover what became of the only person he has ever loved.

Before Love was simply ecstatic over it a few weeks ago, I had never heard of this book. (I was under the belief I had never heard of the author, either, but it turns out he wrote the novel the  tv-series The Magician’s House is based on - fancy that!) I naturally assumed that it was a new book, strengthened by the “Winner of the Dillons First Fiction Award”. I also assumed that the book was set roughly nineteen-ten, all due to the hats of the boys in the picture. The fact that people wore them after that time was unthinkable! So, naturally, when I opened it up and saw it was from nineteen-ninetyfive, I was a little surprised! When I started reading and there were all sorts of new things, I smelled a rat. Or, really, I didn’t smell anything; it was so lovely.

I read a rough twenty pages in the morning, before being called away to do something or another. Late at night, when I was going to bed, I decided to sneak in a few pages. Need I say I finished it before turning out the lights? I less than four hours sleep (compared to my usual seven to nine), so it is peculiar I am not seeing things. Apart from the things I should see, of course. One of the things I see is that this is a terrific book. Really top-notch. It is a bit like E.M. Forster’s Maurice and how I imagine Alan Hollinghurst’s The Line of Beauty would be. (I’ve not yet read the latter, due to lack of time and my father exclaiming something about what bastards they were when he had finished it. Plus my sister nicked it.) It is witty, calm, beautiful, at some places down-right terrifying. A lot of the time, it is really funny. The following bit had me in fits at one o’clock in the morning:

‘Actually, [Roger, the protagonist's nephew] isn’t my type. But I don’t expect you to believe me. I go for the older man. Now, if Richard [Roger's father]  was in my room, you’d have every right to be worried.’ For a moment I could see that she was almost pleased. My words confirmed her unerring taste - even in me. ‘I also, of course, go for the older woman,’ I continued. ‘No, not you, Angela, but Mother. You really wouldn’t be safe from me, darling, so don’t dream of sharing a room with me. You know that incest is all the rage at the moment. I could be your toy-boy son. Would you have me?’
‘Certainly,’ Mother replied gaily. That’s settled, then. Chris will sleep in my bed and Roger can have the room to himself.’
‘What are you both talking about?’ Angela said, looking and sounding bemused.
‘Incest, darling,’ Mother told her.                                         (pp. 190-191)

Of course my laughter was very quiet, not to disturb any sleeping person within a hundred yards around me, but I could’ve awoken the entire neighbourhood - they would surely laugh as well! This quote, too, shows the loveliness of both the main character Chris and his mother. During the first fifty-odd pages his mother annoyed me a little, but then I grew to love her. She might be in her seventies, but she still jokes about incest!

This novel is a reminder for me just how lovely gay lit is, even though I guess it is dreadful to niche it in there. (in an ideal world there shouldn’t be any categories of that kind, should there? But, well! It is such a lovely genre!) Unfortunately, there isn’t all that much I’ve read that is as good as this. I will have to look for a lot more, and I will be glad to. And if it is as good as this, I don’t mind if I sleep four hours a night.

Brott & straff
(Преступление и наказание = Crime & Punishment)
Fyodor Dostoevsky
Translated by Hans Björkegren.
325 + 309 p.

Wahlström & Widstrand, 1979.
(first published 1866 in several installments.)

For Decades ‘08 and Russian Reading Challenge.

Back cover blurb:

Brott och straff har kallats “världens mest berömda roman”. Denär också en av världens mest lästa böcker. Den kom ut 1866 och alltsedan dess har hundratals miljoner läsare följt den fattige studenten och mördaren Raskolnikov på hans febervandringar genom Petersburg. Generationer av psykiatriker, religionspsykologer, kriminologer, sociologer och litteraturforskare har hämtat argument och exempel ur denna gastkramande berättelse om en “övermänniskas” väg mot katastrofen. Brott och straff har aldrig förlorat sin aktualitet och gåtfulla spänning. Ännu i dag känns den märkvärdigt levande och modern.

En nyöversättning till svenska har länge varit efterlängtad. Hans Björkegrens tolkning av romanen är genomgripande och har gjorts i samarbete med sovjetiska experter.

After two sentences I was smitten. I must have known I would be this smitten, or I wouldn’t have longed to read it as much I did - I spent a great deal of time last term eagerly waiting for the time for us to come when we were going to read this book. We are not expected to have finished it yet. We are supposed to have begun it come the next Swedish lesson. But I honestly couldn’t wait once we had started talking about it. I plowed through it in five or so days (it probably would have taken less time if I had not been forced to be nice and social to my family) and I loved every moment of it. Who would have thought I would be so intrigued by a poor ex-student turned killer?

The character of Raskolnikov never ceased to amaze me. Of course, the times he gave all of his money to different people I ground my teeth in frustration - why couldn’t he think of himself?! Though, I guess, that’s one of the reasons I found him so fascinating. I couldn’t help but feel for him, despite him killing a person “just because”. He is such an exquisite and chiseled character. In fact, all of the characters feel remarkably alive and real, much more so than anything else I’ve read in the past few months.

Like I mentioned before, this is one of the novels I am studying in school (or will be studying on Tuesday). I know for a fact that many of my friends and classmats will despise this book, because of the simple reason that I think it is so good. Or maybe it’s related to that one of the other Swedish classes have already read it and there seems to be many who despise it there. Hopefully none of the people I know well hate it, but I can’t bet on that. The most tragic thing is that when I will try and defend it all I will be able to say is “BUT IT’S SO GOOD”. They’ll all write me off as a nut who loves it because I study Russian. Actually, this me studying Russian proved a bit of problem when I was reading it. Sometimes I found myself staring at a name, wondering how that is spelled in the cyrillic alphabet, if it had an у or an о, a ю or a ё. Now, my Russian skills are at a very basic level, but let’s admit it: my dream is to one day be good enough at the language to read at least a bit of literature in it. I don’t know if this is the goal of many people studying languages, but else, what’s the point? One day I might reach this goal. Maybe I’ll fail miserably and in five years’ time I will look back at this and laugh at myself, but hey - you can have dreams, can’t you?

There is a BBC serial based on this novel, with John Simm as Raskolnikov. Anyone who have known me for any time the last two months will know that when I watch this, I will explode. And then I’ll be back for more - the next month and a half’s worth of Swedish classes will be full of discussions regarding this book. Yum.

(a couple of notes: a) the cover of the edition is impossible to find. which is a pity, because I quite like it. It’s really plain, but still!
b) The copy I read was my parents’, only because the one I got from school was too ugly. Apart from aesthetics, I have also gained a few other things. It is quite practical to have parents who’ve studied literature at University.)

A Tale of Two Cities
Charles Dickens
367 p.

Penguin Popular Classics, 1994
(first published 1859 by Chapman and Hall.)

For Decades ‘08.

Back cover blurb:

‘It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…’

Those are the famous lines of Dickens’s stirring tale of two cities, London and paris, at the time of the French Revolution. Suspense gathers from the opening scene, the dramatic coach journey to Dover and the rescue of Dr manette from incarceration in the Bastille. At the centre of the novel are the figures of Sydney Carton and Charles Darna, both men in love with the doctor’s beautiful daughter Lucie, linked together by fate and by the engulfing terrors of revolution.

A Tale of Two Cities was written at a time of crisis in Dickens’s life. It is a wonderful love story and, aside from The Pickwick Papers, the most popular of all Dickens’s novels.

Not counting this novel, I have only ever read one book by Dickens, and that’s Great Expectations. I read that in a strange Swedish translation, and wasn’t much impressed. So, I didn’t expect that much from this book. I have always thought that Dickens is a big bore, and was so very surprised to discover that he was so funny! I was also surprised to be so fascinated by his writing. Given, his sentences are roughly seven lines each, but they are so intricate and exciting that I didn’t care. Sometimes I paused and made myself read certain lines again, just because they were pretty. A lot of the time I skimmed through the longest sentences, but that’s not Dickens’ fault. I honestly enjoyed reading it, which is something I didn’t expect I would be saying.

This book sees the return of the trend of my favourite characters dying. A couple of years ago, I could barely open a book without the most fascinating character dying. And here it comes back! Of course, he survived until, well, a couple of pages before the end, but still. I was very sad; but it was a good sad. It was a good ending, too. A good ending to a good novel. I should read more Dickens.

eta. It was impossible to find the proper cover of the version I read, so I just went with the original title page. It is decent enough.

Harry Potter & the Prisoner of Azkaban
J.K. Rowling
317 p.

Bloomsbury, 1999.

Back cover blurb:

Harry Potter is a wizard! Along with Ron and Hermione, his best friends, Harry is in his third years at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Who knows what will happen this year? Read on to find out and immerse yourself in the magical world of Hogwarts…

Before I start saying anything decent, I must just profess my love for the back cover blurbs on the first three books. They are all so happy and trying to lure readers to pick up the books. Today, you could write “Harry Potter is kinda hip” and god-knows how many people would buy it anyway. Such is the charm of Harry Potter. This deep fascination and worldwide obsession with Harry Potter I find very interesting. But, of course, I appreciate the books as they are.

This is my favourite Harry Potter-book. It has got everything. With it my favourite characters (Lupin and Sirius) are introduced, the “real” plot is first nosed at (pun not intended). And Voldemort is not in it. Now, I don’t mind Voldemort - I think he’s a quite interesting character - but it feels so fresh to be rid of him for an entire book! If he had appeared in this book, my high esteem for these books would drop a bit. No one tries to resurrect themselves four time. Ain’t happenin’. With this book Harry is also starting to grow up. He is no longer just “yay for wizardry!”. He’s got funny jolts in his stomach and seems to have matured. Of course, he is miles from the Harry he’s become in the last book, but still! Harry Potter as a phenomena had also started to engrain itself in the society, and you were expected to have read the first two books, which means that not everything is explained yet again. That is one of the things that annoy me in the second book - everything is explained as if you haven’t read the first. Which is very practical if it’s been more than a year reading it, but if it is a day and a half, it isn’t quite as practical.

THIS BOOK IS BRILLIANT. That is all I want to say.