The Bloody Chamber - Angela Carter

This gothic short story is definitely a far cry from my normal choice in texts but it was 42 pages of brilliance. Carter bases this text off the French legend of "bluebeard" casting the Marquis as Bluebeard, killing his wives and keeping their corpses in a secret chamber. Carter's language choices are extremely harsh, and really spins an intense attachment to the heroine of the story and a hatred of the Marquis. The text is twisted in so many ways and really is quite shocking when you read it. The feminist messages within it, despite not being subtle, are woven meticulously in with the plot achieving something many feminist authors struggle with, creating an engaging story even when disregarding this theme. 

Perhaps one of the most interesting questions Carter creates is what room does the text actually consider to be the 'Bloody Chamber'. When the heroine is in the forbidden room she directly refers to it as "this bloody chamber", however, could she infact be referring to their marital chamber? Especially as Carter points out within the text is, “There is a striking resemblance between the act of love and the ministrations of a torturer.” Every time the heroine is in her marital rooms there is an air of shame about her, her despisal of seeing herself in the mirrors surrounding the room suggests an embarrassment in her actions and presence in her room. After they first consummate her marriage the first thing mentioned is the blood, could 'the bloody chamber' really be in reference to the room in which this monstrous man took her virginity. The "blood" being symbolic of the death of her innocence and purity in the world, despite considering herself naive she is intelligent enough to realise the only reason the Marquis was interested in her was her innocence. Does she call this bedchamber bloody because she feels there is no going back now the Marquis has managed to entice her with petty romances? 

Carter takes a very different approach to the traditional fairytale ending of 'happily ever after', however breaking the rules of conformity the Heroine doesn't get saved by her Prince Charming. Instead she was saved by her mother, a clearly feminist message, but also a message defining the maternal bond of mother and daughter. As though the mother could sense the desperation of her daughter whilst facing her imminent death. The image of someone storming in on horseback and shooting the bad guy dead is an image generally associated with males at the end of a very tale - you just have to look at every disney film and how rarely it is the princess is saved by a female! However, another interpretation (and a much better one in my opinion) is that the ending is actually a lie. The ending is seemingly too quick and perfect, the last section of her future life with the piano tuner seems too perfect for the rest of the text and instead appears dream like. As though a fantasy that she is holding onto, to make her struggle easier. 

To conclude, this work of Carter's is truly incredible and instills the want to read it over and over and discover more of  the words. For this reason, I would rate it 9/10

Hatred of Books in The Handmaids Tale

While I'm on the roll of talking about hatred of books within books I thought I may as well make it three in a row, as mentioned in my last blog post it is a theme in Atwood’s The Handmaids Tale. Books are banned in Gilead which means any chance to read is valued greatly by Offred.

The only book allowed in Gilead is the bible but even that is “kept locked up ... it is an incendiary device”. The bible which is traditionally seen as a sanctuary to religious individuals instead is feared as a dangerous item. This is the fear that if the women had access to the bible the could educate themselves to the point where there is the risk that they could stand up to the men. The society is infact contradicting itself here as it claims to be highly religious and functions the way it does because it’s ‘what God would want’ yet they don’t trust the bible and instead make up the content of the bible.

Throughout the text Offred relies on one phrase to help herself survive this oppression she faces, “Nolite bastardes carborundorum”, a phrase she finds scratched into her wardrobe by a previous Handmaid, which is said to be a schoolboys slang for 'Don't let the bastards wear you down'. Offred goes on to recall this phrase as part of her prayer though stating “I don't know what it means but it sounds right”. It is as though because she has no access to written language her passion for it is diminished to simply a superficiality, using the words based on how they sound or look. Her desperation to rebel against the regime is based on insults that she has no clear understanding of. As a young woman who doesn't know latin you can imagine her simply seeing “bastardes” and assuming it equates to the English dysphemism (which she is right to assume) and decides the rest of the claim must be insulting enough to use against the men she hates.

The only word Offred is allowed to read (disregarding the inscription in her wardrobe) is the word “FAITH” that is stitched into the cushion under her window. There’s a sense of irony behind this word being chosen as the only thing she can read is a religious idea, which seems contradictory to the fact of they lock the bible up – this supposedly fully religious society in Gilead seems to be very uncertain in their own faith. Perhaps they only allow this single word because its very simple and difficult to manipulate and use as a base for rebellion – simply a message to have faith in regime. It being under the window is like suggesting look out at the beauty in the gardens and have faith, be inspired by God’s glory to trust the regime. 

Inkheart - Cornelia Funke

I don't know what it is at the moment but I'm in love with books confronting the theme of the 'danger' of book; first with The Handmaids Tale, then Fahrenheit 451 and now onto the list Inkheart! I won’t lie (and this is shameful as a self-proclaimed bookworm) I had been avoiding this book for the size, but mainly because I watched the film when it first came out and really didn't enjoy it, but after having it on my bookshelf for years I finally caved and I'm so glad I did. I've always loved fantasy and as my favourite fantasy novel is Funke’s Reckless, I was desperate for her not to disappoint and she really didn’t. Mo, one of the main characters, has the power to paint beautiful pictures when he reads aloud from books and Funke achieves this skill on every page of the book, making it really difficult to put down. 

Inkheart’s characters are so lifelike it’s hard to choose a favourite and I feel Funke was presented with a battle of trying to match her real characters (Mo, Meggie, Elinor, etc) to characters who had been red out of Inkheart (Capricorn, Basta), as fantasy book characters can afford to be far more eccentric and so are easier to style up than characters who are meant to relate to reality. However, I think Cornelia meets this challenge incredibly and some of the characters that haven't been read out are better than those who are. All this being said, my favourite character by far is Basta (which shocks even me as I normally despise the more formidable characters), his twisted nature holds something enthralling I just can't put my finger on. On the surface he’s presented as a shallow man who has eyes only for his knives and desperation for Capricorn’s approval. I think one of the benefits of Funke only presenting us with small sections of Fenoglio’s Inkheart means a whole lot more of the characters is left to the reader’s imagination. To me Basta was the deepest character in the text because he had so many personality pitfalls, making the reader question why he was like that, and where did it come from?

If ever there was a book full of allusions Inkheart is that, each chapter being started with an extract from another text. Cornelia Funke said in her ‘Inkfolio’ notes that she “chose to use quotes at the beginning of the chapter because it was so relevant to Inkheart to have the voices of other books within it”. I feel these extracts give so much to the text, somehow these passages from other texts add to the content of the chapter they prelude. It also makes for a nice break from a book of such length, it gives you a break every now and again to dip your toes into books you've perhaps never heard of, and for me it also provided new editions to my summer reading list (particularly the Princess Bride).

The whole novel is written in 3^rd person though Cornelia Funke was still writing from particular characters perspective. The characters that the perspective the story is told from changes regularly and the first time it did it I found it hard to adapt because it’s not clearly indicated if you're not fully concentrated. Although I feel the change of perspective made for a more interesting narrative, it also made for quite awkward reading. However, this is a very personal issue with the text and with everything else in the text it’s a very minor issue.

All in all Inkheart is a brilliant text, full of beautiful images of everything mentioned. Although at first I was terrified by the length and thought I'd never get through it, recently I've probably read it faster than any other books because it was just so enjoyable. Any faults in the text were simply down to me and very minor. I wish the story within Inkheart (Fenoglio’s Inkheart) actually existed. Funke presents the lesson I'm always trying to convince my friends of that there is always more than just paper and ink to a story, and she presents it in the best of ways. I've adored this book and can't wait to read the following two novels (despite hearing bad reviews) but for the first in the series a perhaps slightly conservative 8/10! 

Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury

The temperature at which paper burns.

This 1951 piece of dystopian literature is a brilliant classic in which roles as we know them today are completely reversed. Firemen, who in our society we associate with putting out fires, and saving persons and property, instead burn the books that have been outlawed, and for this reason is most clearly associated with the tensions that come with book burning (with relations to historical context such as Nazi Germany). We're never told why these books are banned but there are some factors that Bradbury suggests: a general decreased interest in reading (due to increased access to media) and factors contributing to hostility towards books (from envying those who possess more books, holding more knowledge). The afterword tells us of Bradbury's sensitivity towards any attempt to restrict his freedom of speech and the mind (a view I hold close to my heart also, personally I see oppression of the mind as one of the worst forms) and he sees it as hostile and intolerant.

If ever there was a brilliant first sentence of a text Bradbury masters it with this novel, "it was a pleasure to burn". He creates the tone of firemen's attitude from the start of the cliche 'ignorance is bliss', the fireman live a simple existence leaving them no need to be challenged, a simply black and white world - burn them, purge them, purify society. There role is intoxicating, they essentially have the hands of God creating purity by banishing these books. 

One of my favourite narrative methods Bradbury uses is his imagery, using animals, insects and birds. The most famous of this imagery is that of the phoenix, however personally I prefer the more subtle images such as the firemen driving a beetle, "yellow flame coloured beetle". The beetle (insect) connotes progress, simplicity, solidarity and protection, all factors which we can see in the regime:

• Progress - the general theme within dystopian literature is the journey towards a utopia. This regime is occurring because they saw previous life (with freedom to literature) as failing and so a need to progress towards a better future (without books).
• Simplicity - the nature of this regime is somewhat simple: burn books, purify world.
• Solidarity - the dependance on all the firemen working together in order to reach the 'end goal' and the way the story of burning books seems to stop after we discover Montag's secrets.
• Protection - protecting the world from the 'evil' nature of literature (as the society is meant to perceive it).

A traditional method of characterising a group of people as evil is dressing them in black (as can be seen in other texts like The Handmaids Tale, or even the Death Eaters in Harry Potter), Bradbury extends this method to making everything around them black too, "external burning black pipes ... charcoal hair ... soot-coloured brow", this blackness is essentially all firemen being coated in the same corruption. 

Bradbury's poetic prose creates a powerful text that has gone down as a dystopian classic, alongside others such as Orwell's 1984, that still provides a shocking message of the potential threat technology contains even over 60 years after it's first publication. Bradbury manages to create tremendous imagery on every page which led to the book taking me longer than it probably should have because I had to digest all Bradbury's ideas. I strongly recommend this book to anyone if it's just a simple summer read or a more indepth study (eg. I'm using it for A-level coursework), it can work either way and in a studying circumstance there is so much to write about it makes essays easy. In my eyes Bradbury is a literary master and I look forward to reading many more of his works, for this specific text I give it a 9/10.

The Handmaids Tale - Margaret Atwood

The Handmaids Tale is Atwood's dystopian classic exploring the theocratic nature of the Patriarchal Republic of Gilead. This novel tells the tale of Offred's life within the oppressive parallel Atwood predict's for America's future. The class divisions and excessive oppression within this text raise many questions about the truth behind the likelihood of Atwood's assumptions, and raises great amounts of fear to many critics. This novel, which will reach it's 30th anniversary next year, has become renowned for it's context drawing attention from many feminist critics. There is so much to discuss about this text I'm going to break it down into several smaller blog post.

My brief review of this novel is that it is a fantastic piece of dystopian fiction, with a very hard hitting and often depressing tone. The bounce between memories and the current events in Offred's life can be complicated to understand, but regardless of this it is a reasonably easy read. I would strongly recommend this to anyone who enjoys dystopian fiction of any age that views themselves as a reasonably mature reader and I would give Atwood a 9/10 and I definitely plan to read more of her works!

The Role Of Women in Gilead

The roles of the females in this novel are crucial to all readings of it and can expose a lot about the social hierarchy by simply looking at their names and their clothing:

• The Wives are always dressed in blue much like the Virgin Mary would wear, suggesting that their only role is to nurture a child and have no part in the reproductive system. This emphasis of keeping the Virgin Mary's image within upper class females is represented in the Daughters wearing white until they get married. White connotes purity and innocence which is promoted among the highest class of women from a young age, a sense that all higher class women should present themselves as a Holy symbol. The top social class in this society is also like the highest class in the bible and should maintain chastity. 
• The Handmaids are characters based off of the story of Jacob's wife in the Bible, Rachel, who when she failed to conceive a child for Jacob insisted he slept with his handmaid, this is used as the society's justification for their treatment of the handmaids. The handmaids continually dress in red; red as the colour of fire and blood is commonly associated with danger, energy, power, passion and love. The red could be interpreted as a reminder of their past, like a sign hanging around their neck pronouncing their shame, due to it's interpretations as passionate and love filled. It is also symbolic of the female body maturing and the Handmaids only use for their reproductive purpose and when that ability ceases to exist and they can no longer bear the child for the Wives they become useless, Unwoman (lesbians, feminists, nuns, sterile women who are politically dissident whom are exiled to the colonies to work and die).
• Later in the text we journey to a 'club' with Offred where we meet a group of women called Jezebel's. This name again is inspired by the bible, where Jezebel was denounced by Elijah for introducing the worship of Baal into Israel (1 Kings 16:31, 21:5-15, 2 Kings 9:30-7). The name Jezebel in the modern context has come to be a female known for their corruption and ill-attitude. The Jezebels in the Handmaids Tale are a mixture of Lesbians or attractive, educated women, something the novel makes clear is unwelcome in this biblical republic, and consequently are disregarded and their only purpose is as prostitutes, they are the corruptive force behind the social hierarchy in the reproductive system. Their only clothing provided is the degrading, sexualised out fits of 'previous times'.
• The Aunts are in charge of training the handmaids taking this role, as they are infact the only literate women still allowed in Gilead. The Aunts are always dressed in brown, a colour which connotes warmth, comfort, a set of connotations that is seemingly contradictory to  the harsh nature of the Aunts enforcing the corrupt regime on these young women. However, brown also connotes conservatism, a political idea we can see reflected in Gilead. The traditional idea that a women's only role in society is to be a house wife; cook, clean and provide a man with child. Aunt's take the place of the handmaid's mothers as it  is believed their own mothers are the corrupting force in their upbringing, the Aunt's are transforming the handmaids into their new lives and training them out of their previous attitudes.

Robinson Crusoe - Daniel Defoe

Robinson Crusoe is a piece of 18th Century Literature influenced by the life of Alexander Selkirk. Who was a a Scottish castaway who lived for four years on the Pacific island called "Más a Tierra" in Chile. It has gone down in history as a phenomenal classic, and it is well deserved of this title. In it's most basic form it is the story of a boy going against his fathers wishes (that he become a lawyer) and instead follows his dream of going to sea. Encountering multiple counts of bad luck Crusoe eventually ends up abandoned on a desert island with all his shipmates killed, leaving him to find a way of successful living with the constant fear that he could be murdered by savages. 

This novel plays to everyone's childhood dreams of living your life on an exotic island far away from any other civilisation. A concept that has been explored in many other works of literature (such as "Lord of the Flies") but not to such powerful levels as Defoe achieves. Each word Defoe writes leaves you hanging on in the hope that Crusoe may find some human company or fear that he will run out of things to survive or come into danger with savages. Defoe develops Robinson Crusoe as an intelligent man who despite his unlucky circumstance learns how to build a canoe, make bread and endure countless lonely years. 

In his novel, Defoe not only manages to encapsulate the tantalizing tale of a shipwreck he also illustrates a moral and religious dimension to the novel, published in the preface as instruction to readers of God's benevolent wisdom. During a hallucination Crusoe receives the message "Seeing all these things have not brought thee to repentance, now thou shalt die.”  and consequently turns a large portion of his life to studying God's word taking his ignorance to the Bible in his youth as the reason for the circumstance in which he finds himself in. Here links can be made with further religious imagery in such ways as Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden after committing the first sins. 

In my personal opinion Defoe's greatest achievement within this novel is his characterisation of Friday, the 26 year old savage Crusoe saves and turns into his servant when he is about to be eaten by other cannibals. From the start Friday is presented as a loyal servant never appearing to question the authority Crusoe claims over him. Friday can be interpreted to represent all natives of America, Africa and Asia who would later come to be oppressed by European Imperialism (of which Robinson Crusoe is representative of). One of my favourite and most touching moments of the novel is when Friday is reunited with his father, his passion and animation is in strong contrast to Crusoe's emotions to his family, and Defoe translate the archaic image of a family reunion in such a touching manner it reduced me to tears.

I have to admit I disliked the ending to Robinson Crusoe, however, it is necessary to the narrative Defoe develops. The main reason my feelings towards the ending are negative is due to my desperation to explore more of Crusoe's life and see him reunited with many characters (most significantly Xury, my favourite character). Yet the way Crusoe finishes his novel is intelligent and makes sense with the way the rest of the novel is narrated, "I may perhaps give a farther account hereafter" being the last line. Defoe narrates the account of Crusoe's life on the island as a journal so this is a logical, and creative, way to end the text as well as creating every authors desire, the reader looking for more pages after the last pages. And with me Defoe achieved this, leaving me sat flicking through the last pages (in my edition being a Glossary and Notes) searching desperately for an extension of the plot!

To summarise, in Robinson Crusoe Defoe creates an incredible piece of art following the life of a lone sailor successfully leaving the reader hanging on every word. Defoe's language, as can be expected from an 18th century literary master, is quite complex and so I would recommend this book to more advanced readers (specifically A-level and upwards). Defoe achieves a brilliant novel, and although at times it lulled or the language got in the way, it is one of the best books I've read, thus I would rate it 8/10.

Examination Day - Henry Seslar

You can read this short story here.

Examination Day is a work of dystopian fiction with a focus on the oppression of knowledge and the mind. Despite it's length of just 2 pages Seslar develops a strong and relatable (yet slightly disturbing) tale foreshadowing the risks of the continuation of today's society. The determination of the government to remove the intelligent individuals highlights the awareness of the societal corruption created by them. Seslar uses this work as a blatant attack on the government in his direct reference to the "Government Educational Service". The most striking factor of this text to me is the fact the corruption passes into the family home where the father refuses to give the son any extra knowledge, when a home should be a place of freedom, suggesting it is impossible to escape for this totalitarian rule.

One of the most noticeable features of Seslar's story is his labeling of the boy as "600-115" when he goes to the facility highlighting the growing fear that people are becoming no more than just government statistics. The fact this statistic is formed for educational purposes means it can be supposed Seslar is highlighting the concern in the academic world that students are no more than just ''status earners" for the school in the modern day (a fear highlighted in multiple literary works, such as The History Boys). This same concern can also be seen in many aspect of modern life where people are becoming simply defined by a number, for example to banks we are just a credit card number. This  removes individual identity which seems to contradict with the way of the testing as intelligence is a very individual trait. Removal of identity could be seen as a portrayal of compassion by the government in that it is easier to kill someone who is no more than a number.

There is a Marxist message that can be portrayed within this text. Marxism is the focus on removing classes and creating equality. The government in this text seem to hold the belief that removal of intelligent individuals allows equal academic value and removes the risk of oppression. However, Seslar highlights the impossibility of reaching a Marxist state as there will always have to be a leader removing the corrupting force (commonly making this leader a corrupting force). However, this removal of the intelligent could be used as an approach to Marxism in the sense that as they have no one intelligent to take over power once the current leaders die there will be no one left to take charge making an equal society, and this gives a more positive message below the text. (Yet my favourite reading is still the ignorant nature of government).

The last sentence of this short story really sets the disturbing tone to this society, "Government Burial is ten dollars". In the grand scheme of things 10 dollars is not a lot of money and shows that the government really has no respect for the individual. In comparison to the current cost of living and price it is to raise a child (currently averaging at £250,000) $10 is nothing and gives the sense that it could in fact be looked on as the easy way out, especially for the parents, which is a very sinister idea.

All in all, this is the best short stories I've ever read (excluding Hemingway's 6 word story, "For sale: Baby Shoes, Never Worn") and raises so many questions in it's short text. I would recommend this for anyone of any age group especially those of a politically literate mind. Seslar I give you 10/10.

The Fault In Our Stars - John Green

So, I thought I would jump on the hype of The Fault In Our Stars that the world is currently caught up in as a response to the upcoming release of the screen adaptation. The basic story behind this novel can be seen as a common and slightly mundane teenage RomCom, but Green forms the text in such a way it differs from all over novels of a similar plot. There wasn't a single chapter where I wasn't brought to tears, either happy or sad! I must admit going into the text I didn't have high hopes going into it, but after continual persuasion from my friend I caved and ordered it and I wouldn't change that decision for the world! It had great competition in my mind because I'd just finished Allegiant, the final book in the Divergent Trilogy, which quickly stole my heart and it seemed impossible a book could take its place. But John Green congratulations you did it!

I struggled to put this book down as Green instantly develop strong characters who I felt I knew (which many authors struggle to create). I struggle to pinpoint why TFIOS is such a great text as it's not a classical, complex text filled with cryptic messages, it's just a clear, reasonably simple text and it's incredibly effective. The most incredible achievement of John Green in this text is the ability of a 36 year-old man to capture the character of a 16 year-old teenage girl effectively. Hazel Grace is a unique character, not just for her cancer, but also for her more mature mind, when meeting Augustus she doesn't just swoon and discuss how gorgeous he is (although she does mention it) which helps avoid the slightly sickly romance. Personally, my favourite characteristic of Hazel is her response to Augustus getting out a cigarette, she stands up to him. I think the reason she's such a brilliant character is her willingness to stand up to people and not just sit in a corner and accept her fate. The Star-Crossed lovers nature of Hazel and Augustus I feel also is a huge player in everyone's love for it, but personally the defining nature of this relationship is Hazel's refusal to become a "grenade". People generally think along the lines of 'she might not have long to live so she's bound to jump on a relationship' but John Green conflicts this approach showing her fear of the end and an instant similarity between the lovers (as one of the first things Gus tells us is "I fear oblivion,” he said without a moment’s pause. “I fear it like the proverbial blind man who’s afraid of the dark.”). 

To me Augustus is a perfect character, and my dream man (as I'm sure every female reader agrees), not just because of his dashing good looks, but his intelligence and way with words. John Green has created a love interest that isn't the stereotypical hottie he's witty and intelligent. If you don't believe me of his way with words, here's your proof:
“I’m in love with you, and I know that love is just a shout into the void, and that oblivion is inevitable, and that we’re all doomed and that there will come a day when all our labor has been returned to dust, and I know the sun will swallow the only earth we’ll ever have, and I am in love with you.” 
In short Green could of just written "I love you Hazel" or some other stereotypical confession of love but he is much more literate in his approach, and every time i read it my heart melts because the words are frankly beautiful. My favourite bit of this sentence is his reference to oblivion (his biggest fear) and saying he doesn't care about oblivion if it means he can love her!!

In conclusion, John Green has achieved an incredible piece of modern literature in The Fault In Our Stars that is perfect for all age groups and reduced me to tears continually (without ruining the plot I will just say I can look at a Christmas Tree again). Without Doubt I easily give TFIOS 10/10! Bravo John Green.

A side note is a question many people ask "Is An Imperial Affliction a real book?" I too was confused by this and John Green has said himself that no it is not and that Peter Van Houten is not a real person. However, his inspiration behind AIA was Infinite Jest (David Foster Wallace) and The Blood of The Lamb (Peter De Vries), they have gone straight on my summer reading list!

"You see we may not look like much but between the three of us we have: 5 legs, 4 eyes, 2 and a half pairs of working lungs"

How Late It Was, How Late - James Kelman

This book came to my possession on recommendation from my English Teacher as an incredible piece of Scottish Literature and this combined with its Booker Prize status gave me high hopes. In the first 10 pages I was intrigued as to how the slightly controversial event of disability caused through police force would be handled by Kelman. Unfortunately as I read I became more and more disappointed and had to force myself to read right to the end in hope of a big ending, which anyone who knows the book may agree is that the ending can feel greatly anti-climactic and I personally was devastated as I closed the book and dropped it on my bed with a sigh. However, it must be noted, after a week or two of consideration it is clear why so many people love the book, despite it still not holding a special place in my heart.
One of the things How Late It Was, How Late has gained a reputation for is it’s abundance of brutal dysphemism. Blake Morrison estimates that Kelman uses "fuck" four thousand times in this single text. It cannot be denied that this language is what dominated my judgment of the text throughout my reading. I (rather cruelly) concluded with myself that his Booker Prize was a consequence of the readers hilarity at this excessive use of dysphemistic language. And it would seem I am not alone, Simon Jenkins accused Kelman of doing no more than "transcribing the rambling thoughts of a blind Glaswegian drunk". I would agree with Jenkins as to me that is exactly what How Late It Was, How Late is on the surface, however I feel that there is a deeper message that is hard to reach without a dedicated literary mind. To me, particularly as I read, the story just seemed to be following a man who became blind in highly unfortunate situation who then spent the next 300 pages walking around going 'oh I’m blind' 'being blind is so much more different to having normal vision', which seems a futile and barefaced message. Another issue with the language of Kelman's novel is the working class Scottish dialect, to me this didn't cause issue if I focused but I can understand why to some people this vernacular can cause struggle. Yet I feel due to the characterisation of Sammy (the main character) this is a necessary narrative choice and actually added a lot to the text rather than taking great amounts away. 

I believe there is an important message behind what Kelman had narrated. We see a man put through significant physical and emotional distress by the Scottish police force, or "sodjers", and gain no sense of sympathy. This raises serious concerns of police oppression, in that their superiority gives them power to neglect the working class. Sammy's blindness can be taken as a metaphor for the blindness of society which is emphasized through his refusal to claim compensation. Is this just because Sammy is a mid aged, lazy, drunk Glaswegian or because of fear over the police's response? Personally I believe it is the later, but the influence may be the attitude Sammy has as a mid aged, lazy, drunk Glaswegian which constructs his opinion of the police force as oppressive. Perhaps the police as a whole in the novel are symbolic of the fear authority puts on normal people, allowing them to be an oppressive force.

Despite criticism of Kelman on certain elements, particularly language, its merit’s are present; however, I feel the ending really lets the novel down. In my opinion there are multiple directions Kelman could have taken the ending, even the slightest adaptation could improve it. The most obvious question the ending left me with is “what about Helen?” which I’m sure was one of Kelman’s intentions. When I read the last line I felt like I’d lost pages at the end as there were so many unanswered questions, though this can generally be seen as an effective literary technique I feel Kelman failed it. Instead of a dramatic ending that left the reader pondering questions, the text just seemed to fall on its face. There was further Kelman could of taken the text from the ending but by the phrasing of the ending I get the feeling any extension would continue much the same as the rest of the text, and frankly I would not be interested in reading it.

I would recommend that this text is for the more mature reader (advanced GCSE, A-level, degree level, or simply an adult mind), but it should be approached with a more keen literature attitude. Personally, I would not jump at the opportunity to read it again for leisure, but I would not protest to working with it again in a more academic circumstance. I would give How Late It Was, How Late a rather harsh 5/10... Sorry Kelman!