Scan barcode
joenglish's review against another edition
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
2.25
jmatkinson1's review against another edition
5.0
Tariq is a Moroccan teenager, sexually frustrated and looking for adventure he decides to travel to Paris, former home of his long-dead mother and a city he is obsessed with. Hannah is an American academic who travels to Paris to research the lives of women during the Occupation and to exorcise the ghost of an unsatisfactory love affair from her last visit ten years before. Tariq is an innocent abroad, he knows nothing of the famous French that his beloved Metro stations are named after, but his eyes are opened to two sad events, the deportation of the Parisian Jews from Drancy and the massacre of the Algerians several years later. Hannah finds her life intertwined with the stories of the women she is researching.
Many reviewers say that this is not Faulks' finest book, it may well not be, but a lesser offering from Faulks is still better than most other books published! I loved this book and am prepared to forgive the slightly confusing elements because it is such an emotional story. I ended it wanting to know more about the plight of the Algerians under Pappon, a tale that is glossed over in French history. Faulks is a wonderful writer, he draws the reader in with emotional power until the reader really cares about the characters and then is hit with the bigger message. I don't think this is one of Faulks' weaker books, it is just wonderful.
Many reviewers say that this is not Faulks' finest book, it may well not be, but a lesser offering from Faulks is still better than most other books published! I loved this book and am prepared to forgive the slightly confusing elements because it is such an emotional story. I ended it wanting to know more about the plight of the Algerians under Pappon, a tale that is glossed over in French history. Faulks is a wonderful writer, he draws the reader in with emotional power until the reader really cares about the characters and then is hit with the bigger message. I don't think this is one of Faulks' weaker books, it is just wonderful.
markw's review against another edition
medium-paced
3.0
Engaging (if implausible) characters, Faulks writes a fine sentence, evocative Parisian settings, good pace that's keeps you turning the pages.
On the downside: Faulks seems to think we are likely to be in want of some basic lessons in 20th century French history, notably on occupied Paris/France (collaboration, the Raf' du Vel' d'Hiv, Drancy & Natzweiler) and the Algerian war and its mainland repercussions, so has his characters deliver lectures to each other. Perhaps worse, though are the fey magic realism/time-slip scenes. Worst of all, the toe-curlingly sentinmental and (to my mind) lazy ending – I'm sure Faulks could have come up with half-a-dozen better endings in an afternoon if he'd put his mind to it.
On the downside: Faulks seems to think we are likely to be in want of some basic lessons in 20th century French history, notably on occupied Paris/France (collaboration, the Raf' du Vel' d'Hiv, Drancy & Natzweiler) and the Algerian war and its mainland repercussions, so has his characters deliver lectures to each other. Perhaps worse, though are the fey magic realism/time-slip scenes. Worst of all, the toe-curlingly sentinmental and (to my mind) lazy ending – I'm sure Faulks could have come up with half-a-dozen better endings in an afternoon if he'd put his mind to it.
beccajdb's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
2.0
If Faulks wants to educate us about occupied Paris and Algerian independence, I wish he’d just write a history. Instead we get a weak story peppered with information that sounds ridiculous in the mouths of the unbelievable characters. And ‘ghosts’ of Victor Hugo etc?!! For crying out loud. To make matters worse, we have a female main character and a Moroccan 19-year-old who are drawn like stick figures and are just devices for information and stereotyping. Awful.
_shonahenderson's review against another edition
adventurous
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
amber_rw's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
5.0
emily_stanford's review against another edition
informative
reflective
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? Yes
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
1.0
rglossner's review against another edition
4.0
Tariq is a Moroccan teenager determined to escape his family and see Paris, where he knows his mother once lived. Hannah is an American researcher who has returned to Paris to research the lives and voices of women who lived during the Occupation. They become roommates through a series of unlikely events, and the novel is told in their voices and through their eyes in alternating chapters. Tariq experiences Paris in the present, but known only to the reader, he also experiences the Paris of the past through encounters with people who lived during the time Hannah is researching. Hannah's research takes her down some surprising paths. And she is able to let go of a lost love, and find a new one. Well written.
fictionfan's review against another edition
4.0
Hidden histories...
Two strangers in Paris for very different reasons meet, and through them the reader is taken to two important parts of France’s past – the Nazi occupation of France and France’s own colonial occupation of Algeria. Hannah is a post-doctoral student, in Paris to research a chapter for a book on women’s experiences during the Nazi occupation. Tariq is a 19-year-old from Morocco, who has left his comfortable home to try to find out more about his mother, a Frenchwoman who died when he was an infant.
I have very mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, I knew very little about either of the parts of history Faulks discusses, and found them interesting and well written, with a feeling of having been well researched. On the other hand, the whole framing device of Hannah and Tariq and their experiences is completely unconvincing – so much so that I had to jump over an almost insurmountable credibility barrier before the book had got properly underway.
I’ll get my criticisms out of the way first, then. Hannah has just arrived in Paris, on her own, when she comes across a homeless girl in the street, a complete stranger, who appears to be ill. So she takes her back to her flat, looks after her, leaves her there while she goes out to work and doesn’t mind when the girl moves a friend in – Tariq. Well, that’s all lovely, and nobody robs her or trashes the place and Tariq becomes the perfect lodger. But. Seriously? It simply would never happen, unless Hannah was nuts and we’re not led to believe that she is. Nor did I feel that a young man in Paris for the first adventure of his life would want to spend his time living with a thirty-something landlady.
The other thing that jarred was Faulks attempt to bring a kind of ghostly vibe into the story, as each becomes consumed by the history they are researching. I could have accepted it if there were only one of them – one could have put it down to overwork, stress, over-active imagination, etc. But both beginning to see and hear people and events from the past? Partly my problem with this was that it reminded me a little of how Hari Kunzru brought the past into the present supernaturally in White Tears, and that comparison worked to Faulks’ disadvantage, since Kunzru did it so much more effectively.
But once Faulks begins to let us hear the stories of the women during the Occupation, his storytelling rests on much firmer grounds. He does this by having Hannah listen to tapes made as a kind of living history project, when the women were elderly and looking back at their experiences. I found these stories compelling and often moving, and they carried me through my problems with the framing story. He is making the point that this is a period which France prefers not to examine too closely and tends to somewhat distort by suggesting that most people were either actively or passively resisting the Germans. Faulks suggests that in fact most people were willing to go along with whoever looked like they’d be the winner – their over-riding desire was to not have the same massive loss of life as in WW1 and they didn’t think much more deeply than that. It was only after the tide of war turned against Germany that women were vilified for associating with the German soldiers – Faulks suggests that before that it was commonplace and most people weren’t overly concerned about it.
The other side of the historical aspect – France’s troubled relationship with Algeria – isn’t done quite so well, with an awful lot of info-dumping. However, since I didn’t know a lot of the info I still found it interesting reading. Faulks is obviously comparing the two episodes as opposite sides of occupation, but I felt that was a little simplistic. More interesting was the comparison of how both events are downplayed in France – a hidden past that, Faulks seems to be suggesting, must come fully into the light before France can reconcile itself with its own history and properly understand its present.
I rather wish that, instead of having the present day framing and the double history, Faulks had simply taken us back to the days of the Occupation and told a straightforward story of the women caught up in events. Somehow, the art of plain storytelling seems to be considered old-fashioned at the moment, and books become unnecessarily complex as a result, laying themselves open, as this one does, to having parts that work and parts that don’t. Overall, the good outweighed the less good for me with this one, but I feel it could have been excellent had it been more simply told. Nevertheless, recommended.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, Random House Cornerstone.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
Two strangers in Paris for very different reasons meet, and through them the reader is taken to two important parts of France’s past – the Nazi occupation of France and France’s own colonial occupation of Algeria. Hannah is a post-doctoral student, in Paris to research a chapter for a book on women’s experiences during the Nazi occupation. Tariq is a 19-year-old from Morocco, who has left his comfortable home to try to find out more about his mother, a Frenchwoman who died when he was an infant.
I have very mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, I knew very little about either of the parts of history Faulks discusses, and found them interesting and well written, with a feeling of having been well researched. On the other hand, the whole framing device of Hannah and Tariq and their experiences is completely unconvincing – so much so that I had to jump over an almost insurmountable credibility barrier before the book had got properly underway.
I’ll get my criticisms out of the way first, then. Hannah has just arrived in Paris, on her own, when she comes across a homeless girl in the street, a complete stranger, who appears to be ill. So she takes her back to her flat, looks after her, leaves her there while she goes out to work and doesn’t mind when the girl moves a friend in – Tariq. Well, that’s all lovely, and nobody robs her or trashes the place and Tariq becomes the perfect lodger. But. Seriously? It simply would never happen, unless Hannah was nuts and we’re not led to believe that she is. Nor did I feel that a young man in Paris for the first adventure of his life would want to spend his time living with a thirty-something landlady.
The other thing that jarred was Faulks attempt to bring a kind of ghostly vibe into the story, as each becomes consumed by the history they are researching. I could have accepted it if there were only one of them – one could have put it down to overwork, stress, over-active imagination, etc. But both beginning to see and hear people and events from the past? Partly my problem with this was that it reminded me a little of how Hari Kunzru brought the past into the present supernaturally in White Tears, and that comparison worked to Faulks’ disadvantage, since Kunzru did it so much more effectively.
But once Faulks begins to let us hear the stories of the women during the Occupation, his storytelling rests on much firmer grounds. He does this by having Hannah listen to tapes made as a kind of living history project, when the women were elderly and looking back at their experiences. I found these stories compelling and often moving, and they carried me through my problems with the framing story. He is making the point that this is a period which France prefers not to examine too closely and tends to somewhat distort by suggesting that most people were either actively or passively resisting the Germans. Faulks suggests that in fact most people were willing to go along with whoever looked like they’d be the winner – their over-riding desire was to not have the same massive loss of life as in WW1 and they didn’t think much more deeply than that. It was only after the tide of war turned against Germany that women were vilified for associating with the German soldiers – Faulks suggests that before that it was commonplace and most people weren’t overly concerned about it.
The other side of the historical aspect – France’s troubled relationship with Algeria – isn’t done quite so well, with an awful lot of info-dumping. However, since I didn’t know a lot of the info I still found it interesting reading. Faulks is obviously comparing the two episodes as opposite sides of occupation, but I felt that was a little simplistic. More interesting was the comparison of how both events are downplayed in France – a hidden past that, Faulks seems to be suggesting, must come fully into the light before France can reconcile itself with its own history and properly understand its present.
I rather wish that, instead of having the present day framing and the double history, Faulks had simply taken us back to the days of the Occupation and told a straightforward story of the women caught up in events. Somehow, the art of plain storytelling seems to be considered old-fashioned at the moment, and books become unnecessarily complex as a result, laying themselves open, as this one does, to having parts that work and parts that don’t. Overall, the good outweighed the less good for me with this one, but I feel it could have been excellent had it been more simply told. Nevertheless, recommended.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, Random House Cornerstone.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com