It is finished! This moment has been twenty three days in the making. In truth, I did not read this book every day. I very rarely take more than two weeks to read a book; I often take less than four days. This was clearly an exception to my general reading trend.
The Last of the Mohicans was written by James Fenimore Cooper in 1826. I did not particularly enjoy this book. I was not much interested in the story line, possibly because I did not care about the the characters. Not one of the characters did I like. It was, for me, a dry, drawn-out tale of two-dimensional characters.
The writing itself bothered me. A line from Sarah Dessen's book Along for the Ride comes to mind: My dad never said a sentence when he could go on for a paragraph (p. 69). I could imply the same about Mr. Cooper. I am certain that a good deal of my displeasure with the writing in this book is greatly tied to the - nearly - two centuries between it's writing and now.
I had some degree of appreciation for two aspects of the book: occasional French and political practice. I am striving to learn the French language, so it was neat to challenge myself to ascertain the meaning of said passages. See, I am not opposed to longer sentences in practice. I prefer sentences of varying lengths.
As for political practice, the major antagonist was, by all accounts, a brilliant politician. He manipulated people quite easily, in so crafty a manner as to convince them it was their own thought. He knew the balance of flattery, condemnation, reminders, and vengeance that would result in the outcome he desired.
I am not particularly interested in practical politics. I think the current status of the U. S. of A. government has been warped to a point where it is beyond redemption. For instance: WikiLeaks. There was a big uproar about this a few years ago. I wasn't interested at the time. I have realized something that baffles me about it.
The situation - as I understand it - was that confidential government files were "leaked" online. On the one hand, yes, potential disaster from a Homeland Security. More relevantly, why were there any such files? The United States of America is supposed - here meaning "called or said to be, impersonating - a transparent government, i.e. the public is to be in full knowledge of government actions.
Political theory and how people communicate, manipulate, orchestrate and maneuver events to suit their fancy, that I find fascinating. I have strayed from my original tack.
My last main complaint about this book is the narrator. The narrator is not present for most of the book. When he or she is, I am very quickly exasperated. He or she is irritating, condescending and extremely wordy. Sometimes he or she "speaks" in the prose, other times, in footnotes. Said footnotes more often constitute a paragraph.
If one is wondering, no, I am not strictly anti-narrator. Lemony Snickit I adored.
Overall, my summation of this book can be taken from the "Editor's Note" at the novel's close, "By even the most charitable standards, Cooper was no polished craftsman: his descriptions are often verbose, his characters oversimplified, their dialogue silted, and their actions improbable (p. 413)."
The only contradiction I offer is on the final note. My brothers and I all enjoy Clive Cussler, Jack DuBurl, and James Rollins novels; Dirk Pitt, Kurt Austin, Juan Cabrillo, Phillip Mercer, Painter Crow, and the other various characters of other various similar novels are all about improbable actions. Perhaps it was different in 1984 when the edition I own was printed.
All in all, I am considering getting rid of this book. However, as I am generally loathe to do so, I will likely keep it, read it again, then decide. People have been reading Cooper's work for nearly 200 years. Maybe I will find the world of his creation more appealing when I revisit it.
Much love,
-Genni
No comments:
Post a Comment