Book Review: "Double-Fault"
by Chelsea Cain
published October 22, 2010
In Chelsea Cain's book review of "Our Kind of Traitor," by John le Carre, she uses a small amount of the formalism and historicism critical perspectives to analyze the novel, but generally she just summarizes the novel and her opinion of it.
Throughout the majority of the review, Cain takes the reader on a journey through the book and all of the feelings the reader may experience, while occasionally using a couple critical perspectives on the way. She begins with a little Historicism by mentioning the background of the author, le Carre, who is the "papa of cold war spy novels" (1). In Cain's view, the writer of the novel brings the reader a sense of nostalgia and "warms the hearts of those... who long for the era before Jack Bauer, when spies quoted P.G. Wodehouse and wore mackintoshes," while living in a time of only brooding and romantic vampire novels (1). After a little summary of the plot the writer then uses the formalistic critical perspective while discussing the "classic spy archetypes" that le Carre uses when the spies' code names are introduced as Tom, Dick and Harry (3). Using a historical approach, she notices that le Carre tries to be relevant to what is happening in the present, with a plot involving "Russian gangsters and international banking," not to mention the the publicity materials that "include a 2009 article from The Observer of London that echoes the narrative conspiracy" (3). Cain's reaction to this though is that the allure of this novel is that it does bring back the past, and does not conform to the modern genres.
The person of this review seemed to be trying to communicate to the readers what a great novel this is because of it's familiar characteristics of old spy novels that brings the readers a sense of sentimentality. It's strengths are that it does use critical perspectives to analyze the novel, but they are used sparingly with few other techniques to accompany them. The majority of the time Cain seems to just summarize the novel.
Some connections between this piece and other pieces we've read in English classes is the stress on typical types of stories. Cain describes a run-of-the-mill spy story with a whisky drinking, educated English gentleman. This similar to what we talk about with archetypes and how everything is an allusion to myths, the Bible, or Shakespeare. There are plot and character archetypes that are characteristics in everything we read and see, since there is basically only one story. Cain is saying the same thing, only using a more specific genre to focus on.
In Cain's book review of le Carre's "Our Kind of Traitor," she uses the critical approaches of formalism and historicism to successfully convince the reader of the excellence of his novel. Over all the message of this piece is adequately conveyed to the reader.
by Chelsea Cain
published October 22, 2010
In Chelsea Cain's book review of "Our Kind of Traitor," by John le Carre, she uses a small amount of the formalism and historicism critical perspectives to analyze the novel, but generally she just summarizes the novel and her opinion of it.
Throughout the majority of the review, Cain takes the reader on a journey through the book and all of the feelings the reader may experience, while occasionally using a couple critical perspectives on the way. She begins with a little Historicism by mentioning the background of the author, le Carre, who is the "papa of cold war spy novels" (1). In Cain's view, the writer of the novel brings the reader a sense of nostalgia and "warms the hearts of those... who long for the era before Jack Bauer, when spies quoted P.G. Wodehouse and wore mackintoshes," while living in a time of only brooding and romantic vampire novels (1). After a little summary of the plot the writer then uses the formalistic critical perspective while discussing the "classic spy archetypes" that le Carre uses when the spies' code names are introduced as Tom, Dick and Harry (3). Using a historical approach, she notices that le Carre tries to be relevant to what is happening in the present, with a plot involving "Russian gangsters and international banking," not to mention the the publicity materials that "include a 2009 article from The Observer of London that echoes the narrative conspiracy" (3). Cain's reaction to this though is that the allure of this novel is that it does bring back the past, and does not conform to the modern genres.
The person of this review seemed to be trying to communicate to the readers what a great novel this is because of it's familiar characteristics of old spy novels that brings the readers a sense of sentimentality. It's strengths are that it does use critical perspectives to analyze the novel, but they are used sparingly with few other techniques to accompany them. The majority of the time Cain seems to just summarize the novel.
Some connections between this piece and other pieces we've read in English classes is the stress on typical types of stories. Cain describes a run-of-the-mill spy story with a whisky drinking, educated English gentleman. This similar to what we talk about with archetypes and how everything is an allusion to myths, the Bible, or Shakespeare. There are plot and character archetypes that are characteristics in everything we read and see, since there is basically only one story. Cain is saying the same thing, only using a more specific genre to focus on.
In Cain's book review of le Carre's "Our Kind of Traitor," she uses the critical approaches of formalism and historicism to successfully convince the reader of the excellence of his novel. Over all the message of this piece is adequately conveyed to the reader.
Pass.
ReplyDeleteReuben Ng: Pass. A very complete analysis of this review.
ReplyDeletePass. Very thorough and convincing. Its just a really really good essay
ReplyDelete