In honor of Bloomsday, I'm tackling James Joyce's Ulysses today, reading along with O at Delaisse and a few other bloggers. I've read A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Many three times, hating it the first time in high school because I didn't understand Modernism and what he was trying to do, and enjoying it the second and third times because I had a better grasp of his style and purpose.
Since Ulysses is one of the few books that intimidate me, I prepared by watching a lecture last night on the work, part of the series on The English Novel offered by The Teaching Company. I'm so glad the library carries many of those courses! Between that and the lengthy introduction in the Penguin Modern Classics edition I'm reading, I feel like I'm got a good grounding in the novel and what Joyce wanted to accomplish.
So far, I've finished the first six sections and have followed along pretty well, much better than I expected. There have just been a few places where I get lost, but I look at those sections as a whole instead of focusing too much on one sentence and I seem to be getting it. I'm sure I'm missing somethings, but I think I'm getting the overall gist.
As I read, I can't help but read as a critic, analyzing what's happening and why Joyce is doing what he's doing. I wonder if that's a construct of the novel that forces you do that or if it's a societal construct that makes you feel like you have to do that understand it. Either way, I'm enjoying it so far.
Section one lures you in with a fairly traditional narrative structure and a false sense of security. This section does not prepare you for the coming sections where the structure keeps changing. We learn about Stephen, the same character from Portrait, and how he's back in Dublin as a teacher and how his mother recently died. She wanted him to pray over her death bed and he refused because he doesn't believe in a personal God or prayer. Buck Mulligan can't believe he wouldn't grant her wish. Buck seems more like a traditional Irishman to me and like someone who is more comfortable with who he is (although maybe that's not very Irish). Stephen just wants to break free from the English (political) and Italian (religious).
In section two, the style changes to a catechism and is more lyrical. Stephen is teaching a class and the boys do not respect him. He reflects on the ugliness of one boy and how despite that, the boy's mother loved and protected him and made sure he's made it this far and kept him from being stamped out by the world. When Mr. Deasy pays Stephen, Deasy talks about how the most important thing to an Englishman is being debt free and owing no one. Stephen thinks of his debts. This doesn't seem feasible for an Irishman. While Deasy laments the death of Old England, Stephen thinks of the past as a nightmare to escape.
Section 3 is where the stream of consciousness really starts and following everything gets trickier. Stephen visits his aunt and uncle, who seem to blame him for his mother's death to some extent. Later, he walks and wonders if his works will be read. Then, he picks his nose and wipes it on a stone, then looks to see if anyone saw. On the one hand, we want some level of fame because we want to be remembered, yet we don't want people to see us at our worst.
Section 4 moves to Leopold Bloom, our main character. In this section we get a stream of consciousness narrative of Bloom's morning. He prepares breakfast, talks to his cat, talks to his wife and goes to the store. Here, write like Yoda Joyce does. Many of the sentences are in an odd order, although since we don't think in complete sentences this works. I liked seeing Bloom interact with his cat, thinking about how the cat sees him. There's a lot of description of the food, which is just a normal everyday breakfast (albeit a gross one - liver). Usually food descriptions in books are either lush meals or someone scavenging for food for survival, not an ordinary meal. Joyce is trying to capture everyday life in this novel, and this is more evident here than anywhere else thus far.
In Section 5 Bloom is preparing for a funeral he will attend at 11. M'Coy asks him to write his name down and the funeral in case he can't make it. Really? Who does that? We see letters from Martha to Henry and vice versa. Henry is Bloom and Martha is his erotic pen pal whom he has not met face to face. The narcissism technique for this chapter made me think about how we all think our thoughts are amazing and they are so important to us, but if you spilled them all out on paper they would be mostly mundane and banal like Bloom's with a few strokes of genius now and then, but mostly non-sensical to anyone but us. There are more references to Hamlet, which have occurred throughout the book. Maybe this is telling us something about ghosts of our fathers, ghosts of our pasts?
In Section 6, we learn that the Blooms had a son who died in infancy. Bloom mentions that when babies are born healthy the mother is credited, when not, the father is blamed. What an opposite reaction from how most of history viewed that! Bloom goes to the funeral, talks about how at funerals you always have to say the deceased is now in Heaven, because what else can you say and you have to say something.
I'm off to continue reading! I know I won't get through the whole thing today because my father-in-law and his girlfriend are coming over for dinner. I also got a late start and have taken a few breaks, so I'm already a bit behind. I'm planning to continue reading tomorrow and hope to finish most of it this weekend and then wrap it up this week. I don't want to drag it out forever. I plan to come back and update this post again later. Happy Bloomsday everyone!
Showing posts with label Classics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Classics. Show all posts
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Clarissa - May Post
I am shocked to say that I'm not only finished with the May reading of Clarissa, but I've actually already read some of the June entries! Do not take this to mean I'm enjoying myself though. I still want to bring Richardson's editor back from the dead and beat him with the bulky tome until he dies again. It's just so frustrating because I feel like there are kernels of a compelling story hidden beneath layers and layers of verbosity and repetitive letters.
I like where Richardson seems to be going. Women had it rough in the eighteenth century. If you were fortunate enough to be born to a gentleman, you would be completely controlled by him until he sells you off to whichever man makes the most business/political sense. Then you get to be controlled by him until one of you dies. If he dies, you might be able to be independent if you're lucky, but it's likely your estate will be entailed and given to a male relative. They might let you stay there. Or, you may have to marry again and repeat the process, or return home to your father, or go to a brother or another male relative, or maybe a sister or cousin and help with their children.
And if you're poor? Well, you get to work yourself to the bone, have a brood of children you can't afford, and spend most of your time caring for some richer person's family instead of your own.
But back to Clarissa. In the May letters, we see her life after she runs away with Lovelace and regrets her decision, not that she really decided to runaway, it just sort of happened. Now she's stuck because her virtue is destroyed because everyone assumes she's slept with Lovelace, even though she hasn't. She must marry him now or be alone forever, and she has no where else to go. However, she's realized she doesn't want to marry him and is hoping for a way out.
Despite my complaints, I do think the story picked up steam this month when I look back at it, but it took nearly 200 pages to share what I summarized in a paragraph...and it's still going into June. June is the month with the most pages, so I'm hoping it picks up more. Then we start the downward slide with each month having fewer and fewer pages. I plan on finishing in October as November and December have only 16 and 6 pages according to JoAnn's reading schedule (I'm reading it on my Nook so I'm not positive how many pages are in my edition) and I'd rather just get it over with. If you want to the other crazy participants who are trying to make their way through Clarissa, check out JoAnn's page (although I think there are only about 5 or 6 of us left!).
I like where Richardson seems to be going. Women had it rough in the eighteenth century. If you were fortunate enough to be born to a gentleman, you would be completely controlled by him until he sells you off to whichever man makes the most business/political sense. Then you get to be controlled by him until one of you dies. If he dies, you might be able to be independent if you're lucky, but it's likely your estate will be entailed and given to a male relative. They might let you stay there. Or, you may have to marry again and repeat the process, or return home to your father, or go to a brother or another male relative, or maybe a sister or cousin and help with their children.
And if you're poor? Well, you get to work yourself to the bone, have a brood of children you can't afford, and spend most of your time caring for some richer person's family instead of your own.
But back to Clarissa. In the May letters, we see her life after she runs away with Lovelace and regrets her decision, not that she really decided to runaway, it just sort of happened. Now she's stuck because her virtue is destroyed because everyone assumes she's slept with Lovelace, even though she hasn't. She must marry him now or be alone forever, and she has no where else to go. However, she's realized she doesn't want to marry him and is hoping for a way out.
Despite my complaints, I do think the story picked up steam this month when I look back at it, but it took nearly 200 pages to share what I summarized in a paragraph...and it's still going into June. June is the month with the most pages, so I'm hoping it picks up more. Then we start the downward slide with each month having fewer and fewer pages. I plan on finishing in October as November and December have only 16 and 6 pages according to JoAnn's reading schedule (I'm reading it on my Nook so I'm not positive how many pages are in my edition) and I'd rather just get it over with. If you want to the other crazy participants who are trying to make their way through Clarissa, check out JoAnn's page (although I think there are only about 5 or 6 of us left!).
Saturday, March 31, 2012
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Erg. I hate it when scheduled posts don't publish for some reason. My Clarissa post was supposed to go up last night, but for some reason it didn't, so you get two posts from me today instead. I just finished up my eighth book for Adam's Magical March, which I thoroughly enjoyed! I managed to get eight fantasy/science fiction books off my shelves and I've started in on a ninth but since it's 947 pages I don't think I'll finish it today since I'm on page 71. :)
Today's book also counts for the March prompt for November's Autumn's A Classics Challenge. This month's questions are about setting:
Level 1
However, I did enjoy reading about the first time our narrator and his companions walk on the sea floor: "The light, which lit the soil thirty feet below the surface of the ocean, astonished me by its power. The solar rays shone through the watery mass easily, and dissipated all colour, and I clearly distinguished objects at a distance of a hundred and fifty yards. Beyond that the tints darkened into fine gradations of ultramarine, and faded into vague obscurity....It was marvellous, a feast for the eyes, this complication of coloured tints, a perfect kaleidoscope of green, yellow, orange, violet, indigo, and blue; in one word, the whole palette of an enthusiastic colourist!"
This section has more vivid descriptions than a lot of the rest of the book, and also sets up M. Aronnax (our narrator) for wanting to continue his journey with the Nautilus, not that he has much of a choice. He sees the chance to explore the world in a way no one else has and be able to improve his studies and scholarly writings. It makes you understand why he's not as desperate as Ned Land is to get off the boat. I identified more with Mr. Land myself. :)
I had higher hopes for this one, but maybe that's because I know it's loved by many, and maybe my hopes were too high. I found it simply to be okay, and it doesn't make me excited to read the rest of Verne's works, although perhaps his non-sea voyages may be more enjoyable. I own Around the World in 18 Days, so I will give that one a shot at some point.
Today's book also counts for the March prompt for November's Autumn's A Classics Challenge. This month's questions are about setting:
Level 1
How has the author introduced the setting? What does it tell you about the character? about the time period? What is the mood of the setting?
Level 2
How do you envision it? Find a few images or describe it. Do you feel the setting is right? or was it a weak point of the author?
Level 3
If this particular setting was changed how would it affect the course of the story?
Setting is an excellent aspect to talk about regarding this classic: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. It's all about setting! The book takes place under the sea, obviously, and on board the Nautilus. In thinking about it, I think the setting was also the weakness. I expected magical descriptions of the sea and the creatures in it, but we mostly got scientific information and descriptions of the Nautilus. I expected to feel like I was along for the journey, but I never did. I felt very disconnected and struggled with being able to really visualize the story. I felt sort of like Verne wrote an outline for a story and then half-heartedly filled it in, but didn't go in and put the passion and details and characterization to make this truly a great story. It's not a bad book, but it left me disappointed. Level 2
How do you envision it? Find a few images or describe it. Do you feel the setting is right? or was it a weak point of the author?
Level 3
If this particular setting was changed how would it affect the course of the story?
However, I did enjoy reading about the first time our narrator and his companions walk on the sea floor: "The light, which lit the soil thirty feet below the surface of the ocean, astonished me by its power. The solar rays shone through the watery mass easily, and dissipated all colour, and I clearly distinguished objects at a distance of a hundred and fifty yards. Beyond that the tints darkened into fine gradations of ultramarine, and faded into vague obscurity....It was marvellous, a feast for the eyes, this complication of coloured tints, a perfect kaleidoscope of green, yellow, orange, violet, indigo, and blue; in one word, the whole palette of an enthusiastic colourist!"
This section has more vivid descriptions than a lot of the rest of the book, and also sets up M. Aronnax (our narrator) for wanting to continue his journey with the Nautilus, not that he has much of a choice. He sees the chance to explore the world in a way no one else has and be able to improve his studies and scholarly writings. It makes you understand why he's not as desperate as Ned Land is to get off the boat. I identified more with Mr. Land myself. :)
I had higher hopes for this one, but maybe that's because I know it's loved by many, and maybe my hopes were too high. I found it simply to be okay, and it doesn't make me excited to read the rest of Verne's works, although perhaps his non-sea voyages may be more enjoyable. I own Around the World in 18 Days, so I will give that one a shot at some point.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Clarissa: March Letters
Wow, Clarissa has gotten repeitive! There were a lot more letters to read this month than the last two months, but they all said the same thing. Here's a summary:
Clarissa: Woe is me! My family is forcing me to marry Mr. Solmes. I won't! I won't!
Miss Howe: Your family sucks.
Clarissa's family: You must marry Mr. Solmes! You are a terrible, horrible person because you refuse to marry an old man you don't like! It must be because of Mr. Lovelace, who is evil incarnate!
Clarissa: But I don't even like Mr. Lovelace (although he's not that bad and I keep writing him). But I won't marry Mr. Solmes, I won't!
Miss Howe: Your family still sucks.
So, yeah. I'm not really enjoying this one. I feel like I'm only reading it because I would feel a sense of accomplishment at having read what is probably the longest English language novel. But do I really want to read one million words of this???? I've made it just slightly further than where I stopped last time, hoping it would pick up, but no such luck yet. Maybe I should forget the year-long event hosted by Terri at Tip of the Iceberg and JoAnn at Lakeside Musing and try the readalong Allie and Jillian and some others are doing in April and just power through. Or perhaps I should just call it quits? Why am I making myself read this? I didn't even like Pamela, one of Richardson's other unecessarily long works.
However, I know a BIG event is coming at some point. I think it might actually make me dislike the novel more, or at least the characters, but at least I know something is coming. But, what if I have to slog through 1450 pages before that happens?
On the positive side, here are two lessons I've learned from this book so far.
Clarissa: Woe is me! My family is forcing me to marry Mr. Solmes. I won't! I won't!
Miss Howe: Your family sucks.
Clarissa's family: You must marry Mr. Solmes! You are a terrible, horrible person because you refuse to marry an old man you don't like! It must be because of Mr. Lovelace, who is evil incarnate!
Clarissa: But I don't even like Mr. Lovelace (although he's not that bad and I keep writing him). But I won't marry Mr. Solmes, I won't!
Miss Howe: Your family still sucks.
So, yeah. I'm not really enjoying this one. I feel like I'm only reading it because I would feel a sense of accomplishment at having read what is probably the longest English language novel. But do I really want to read one million words of this???? I've made it just slightly further than where I stopped last time, hoping it would pick up, but no such luck yet. Maybe I should forget the year-long event hosted by Terri at Tip of the Iceberg and JoAnn at Lakeside Musing and try the readalong Allie and Jillian and some others are doing in April and just power through. Or perhaps I should just call it quits? Why am I making myself read this? I didn't even like Pamela, one of Richardson's other unecessarily long works.
However, I know a BIG event is coming at some point. I think it might actually make me dislike the novel more, or at least the characters, but at least I know something is coming. But, what if I have to slog through 1450 pages before that happens?
On the positive side, here are two lessons I've learned from this book so far.
- I'm extremely thankful to have been born at a time when I'm free to choose who I marry. I love my parents and respect their opinions, but they in no way had control over who (or if) I married.
- Whining is annoying. And boring. Note to self: think of Clarissa when you start to complain, then stop complaining!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Helen
One of my goals this year is to read through some of the Greek and Roman works I have in my Great Books set that I haven't read it. I seem to have gotten stuck in the plays. My plan was just to read a couple and then move on to non-fiction, but I marked all of the plays I haven't read yet with sticky tabs and now they are taunting me, so it looks like I'm my new goal is to finish reading the plays of Euripides and Aristophanes! Fortunately, this still works for Jean's Greek Classics Challenge. I do hope to still read a few other Greek works as well.
Oddly enough, Helen really could count toward Magical March as well, although I'm not sure plays count. Like a lot of Greek plays, there are gods involved and they do work a bit of magic. The premise of this story is that the Helen of the Trojan War didn't really run off with Paris. Hera kidnapped the real Helen and locked her away, and created a fake Helen that went with Paris. So the whole massive, brutal Trojan War was fought over a fake woman. That was both frustrating and chuckle inducing. I wonder what they people at the time thought of this take on the story? It's kind of funny, and shows how pointless the war was, but I wonder how well that went over.
Anyway, in the story, the real Helen has been trapped for 17 years!!! Hera doesn't sound like the most pleasant god, does she? Helen is in the same situation Penelope is in - she's having to fend off suitors as her husband Menelaus is presumed dead and even if he's not, he's off chasing the fake Helen so the real Helen should be free to marry. The primary suitor is Theoclymenus, who decides he's going to force Helen to marry him, and he has the power to pull this off. At the same time, Menelaus shows up and finds the real Helen, but can't be seen by Theo. Does he believe real Helen's tale? Will he be able to rescue her? What will Theo do? Is Theo's sister Theonoe - who knows everything that goes on and whose help is necessary if Menelaus and Helen want to escape - a friend or foe? Check out Helen by Euripides to find out! :)
This play is easier to understand and follow than some of the Greek plays, maybe because I'm fairly familiar with the Trojan War so most of the characters were familiar and I wasn't having to work to keep them straight. It's a fun twist on an old story, even if it's almost as old itself!
In other news, I'm working my way through 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (which isn't terrible, but isn't enthralling me either) and I jumped right in to Dragonfly in Amber, which is definitely enthralling! I feel bad for my mixed review of Outlander - I don't think I gave it enough credit for telling a great story. I'm also trying very hard to finish out CB's TBR Challenge - I had to go to the library today because I had a reserve come in. I went ahead and checked out a few more books to save a trip, but I CANNOT touch them until Sunday. Actually, I've told myself I can't finish them until the stack of books I'm already in the middle of are cleared off my table, so I have quite a bit of reading to do! I am going to try to catch up on some blog reading and commenting tonight though. I've been so busy with work lately that I haven't wanted to spend much time with the computer in the evenings and I'm way behind on making the rounds and miss the interaction.
Oddly enough, Helen really could count toward Magical March as well, although I'm not sure plays count. Like a lot of Greek plays, there are gods involved and they do work a bit of magic. The premise of this story is that the Helen of the Trojan War didn't really run off with Paris. Hera kidnapped the real Helen and locked her away, and created a fake Helen that went with Paris. So the whole massive, brutal Trojan War was fought over a fake woman. That was both frustrating and chuckle inducing. I wonder what they people at the time thought of this take on the story? It's kind of funny, and shows how pointless the war was, but I wonder how well that went over.
Anyway, in the story, the real Helen has been trapped for 17 years!!! Hera doesn't sound like the most pleasant god, does she? Helen is in the same situation Penelope is in - she's having to fend off suitors as her husband Menelaus is presumed dead and even if he's not, he's off chasing the fake Helen so the real Helen should be free to marry. The primary suitor is Theoclymenus, who decides he's going to force Helen to marry him, and he has the power to pull this off. At the same time, Menelaus shows up and finds the real Helen, but can't be seen by Theo. Does he believe real Helen's tale? Will he be able to rescue her? What will Theo do? Is Theo's sister Theonoe - who knows everything that goes on and whose help is necessary if Menelaus and Helen want to escape - a friend or foe? Check out Helen by Euripides to find out! :)
This play is easier to understand and follow than some of the Greek plays, maybe because I'm fairly familiar with the Trojan War so most of the characters were familiar and I wasn't having to work to keep them straight. It's a fun twist on an old story, even if it's almost as old itself!
In other news, I'm working my way through 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (which isn't terrible, but isn't enthralling me either) and I jumped right in to Dragonfly in Amber, which is definitely enthralling! I feel bad for my mixed review of Outlander - I don't think I gave it enough credit for telling a great story. I'm also trying very hard to finish out CB's TBR Challenge - I had to go to the library today because I had a reserve come in. I went ahead and checked out a few more books to save a trip, but I CANNOT touch them until Sunday. Actually, I've told myself I can't finish them until the stack of books I'm already in the middle of are cleared off my table, so I have quite a bit of reading to do! I am going to try to catch up on some blog reading and commenting tonight though. I've been so busy with work lately that I haven't wanted to spend much time with the computer in the evenings and I'm way behind on making the rounds and miss the interaction.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Classics Club
A Classics Club hosted by one of my favorite bloggers? How could I resist! Want to join? Check out the info at Jillian's blog.
Here is my list of 50 classics I plan to read by April 1, 2014. A lot of people are doing 5-year lists, but I decided to just go with 50 in two years and then do another 50 or whatever amount at that time. I included a few recent works that may be disputable as classics, but I've noticed them on a few other lists and I'm lacking in my reading of contemporary classics compared to older classics, and I wanted this to help fill in some gaps, so I included them. I've created a new page to keep track of these, but also copied the list below.
Here is my list of 50 classics I plan to read by April 1, 2014. A lot of people are doing 5-year lists, but I decided to just go with 50 in two years and then do another 50 or whatever amount at that time. I included a few recent works that may be disputable as classics, but I've noticed them on a few other lists and I'm lacking in my reading of contemporary classics compared to older classics, and I wanted this to help fill in some gaps, so I included them. I've created a new page to keep track of these, but also copied the list below.
- Ulysses by James Joyce
- Pendennis by Thackeray
- The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by Anne Bronte
- Tom Jones by Henry Fielding
- Shirley by Charlotte Bronte
- Don Quixote by Cervantes
- War and Peace by Tolstoy
- Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky
- Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe
- Agnes Grey by Anne Bronte
- Kim by Rudyard Kipling
- His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
- Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
- A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving
- The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas
- Animal Farm by George Orwell
- A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens
- Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons
- On the Road by Jack Kerouac
- Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie
- American Pastoral by Philip Roth
- Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell
- Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
- The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
- An American Tragedy by Theodore Drieser
- The Heart is a Lonely Hunter by Carson McCullers
- The Golden Bowl by Henry James
- Howard's End by EM Forster
- Lady Chatterley's Lover by DH Lawrence
- A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
- As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
- The Old Man and the Sea by Ernest Hemingway
- The Stranger by Albert Camus
- The Decameron by Boccaccio
- North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell
- Barchester Towers by Anthony Trollope
- Adam Bede by George Eliot
- The War of the Worlds by HG Wells
- One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
- Tristram Shandy by Lawrence Sterne
- Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson
- The Red Badge of Courage by Stephen Crane
- Far from the Madding Crowd by Thomas Hardy
- The Return of the Native by Thomas Hardy
- The Song of the Lark by Willa Cather
- Walden by Thoreau
- The Way of All Flesh by Samuel Butler
- Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
- The Glimpses of the Moon by Edith Wharton
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Uncle Tom's Cabin
When I started Uncle Tom's Cabin, I was not impressed, to say the least. If I hadn't had a few people tell me to keep reading and read Jean's post on it, I may have given up. I'm happy to say that I finished it - and ended up liking it.
All of the things I complained about were still issues throughout, although her writing is definitely better in some sections than others. It's like she has all of Dickens' faults magnified by 10 - out of nowhere coincidences, extreme overuse of adjectives, inserting herself into the narrative, bad pacing, caricatured characters, and endless preaching. Don't get me wrong, I love Dickens and while he does those things to a small extent, it's nowhere near as bad as Stowe and his works are strong enough in other areas to compensate. I know the book did astonishingly well, but I still think it would have been better if she'd written more like Dickens and toned down some of the faults a bit or had a better editor. It definitely felt more like a propaganda piece thinly disguised as a novel than a novel with a moral and call to action.
That said, this is still a work worth reading for its historical significance. It heated up the debate about slavery and surely opened many people's eyes - in both the North and the South. She lays into both sides. Southerners, more obviously, for their continued use of slavery, no matter how kind the masters may be. For the North, she lays into them for not doing enough to fight slavery or to help free men. What is the purpose of freeing the slaves if they can't find jobs, go to school, vote, or anything else? Racism was just making it easier for the South to cling to slavery by arguing that their slaves would be better off as slaves than free men in the North, which on a physical comfort level, was true in some cases.
Stowe particularly lays into Christians for standing by and doing nothing, or talking about ending slavery but not being willing to welcome a black person into their homes or educate them or hire them. Christians would send money off to fund missionaries to Africa, but wouldn't help the blacks in their own cities.
One thing Stowe obviously does well is stir up emotion. You can't read this and not react, not feel for these people and their real-life counterparts. The break up of families is especially heartbreaking. I can't imagine being ripped away from Ryan that way and sold off, possibly being forced to take another husband or fulfill the desires of my master. I just realized the next book I'm planning on reading is The Handmaid's Tale, which is sort of about the same thing in a completely different society. That should make for an interesting comparison.
One of the many problems I had with the book was that I loved Eliza, and we go so long without finding out what happens to her! That was so frustrating, because poor Tom just wasn't as interesting to read about, not until the very end. I think he was just too good - rebellion is more entertaining to read about I suppose. Don't get me wrong - I felt horrible for him and would have loved to have rescued him or just given him a hug, but the other characters were more alive in a sense than he, or maybe they were just more relatable.
I also loved dear little Eva and the younger Master George. Stowe does a good job of portraying the issue through the eyes of innocent children, who see right and wrong much more clearly than most of the adults. The story also did pick up and made me want to see what happens to everyone, and I managed to finish it quickly despite all of the sermons she injects.
I don't want to harp too much more on the writing style problems, but my edition has a few excerpts from reviews at the time and I thought this part from North American Review was quite funny: "Whatever may be the literary merits of Uncle Tom, they do not account for its success. It exhibits by no means the highest order of genius or skill. It is not to be named in comparison with the novels of Scott or Dickens; and in regard to variety of knowledge, eloquence, imaginative power, and spirited deleations of life and character, manners and events, it is inferior even to those of Bulwer, or Currer Bell, or Hawthorne."
How hilarious is it that this reviewer says it's inferior even to Charlotte Bronte or Nathaniel Hawthorne! As though they are rather inferior writers to begin with, and Stowe is so bad she can't even compare to them! I couldn't help but laugh. It's also funny that he ranks Scott above them as well, and I think most people today would rate Bronte and Hawthorne above him. How tastes and standards change!
There is also a bit from Dickens himself, saying how much he liked the work, but feels she went a bit too far and tries to prove too much, which sort of sums up my own feelings. I would recommend the book to other people though, and think it is an important book to read solely for its history.
All of the things I complained about were still issues throughout, although her writing is definitely better in some sections than others. It's like she has all of Dickens' faults magnified by 10 - out of nowhere coincidences, extreme overuse of adjectives, inserting herself into the narrative, bad pacing, caricatured characters, and endless preaching. Don't get me wrong, I love Dickens and while he does those things to a small extent, it's nowhere near as bad as Stowe and his works are strong enough in other areas to compensate. I know the book did astonishingly well, but I still think it would have been better if she'd written more like Dickens and toned down some of the faults a bit or had a better editor. It definitely felt more like a propaganda piece thinly disguised as a novel than a novel with a moral and call to action.
That said, this is still a work worth reading for its historical significance. It heated up the debate about slavery and surely opened many people's eyes - in both the North and the South. She lays into both sides. Southerners, more obviously, for their continued use of slavery, no matter how kind the masters may be. For the North, she lays into them for not doing enough to fight slavery or to help free men. What is the purpose of freeing the slaves if they can't find jobs, go to school, vote, or anything else? Racism was just making it easier for the South to cling to slavery by arguing that their slaves would be better off as slaves than free men in the North, which on a physical comfort level, was true in some cases.
Stowe particularly lays into Christians for standing by and doing nothing, or talking about ending slavery but not being willing to welcome a black person into their homes or educate them or hire them. Christians would send money off to fund missionaries to Africa, but wouldn't help the blacks in their own cities.
One thing Stowe obviously does well is stir up emotion. You can't read this and not react, not feel for these people and their real-life counterparts. The break up of families is especially heartbreaking. I can't imagine being ripped away from Ryan that way and sold off, possibly being forced to take another husband or fulfill the desires of my master. I just realized the next book I'm planning on reading is The Handmaid's Tale, which is sort of about the same thing in a completely different society. That should make for an interesting comparison.
One of the many problems I had with the book was that I loved Eliza, and we go so long without finding out what happens to her! That was so frustrating, because poor Tom just wasn't as interesting to read about, not until the very end. I think he was just too good - rebellion is more entertaining to read about I suppose. Don't get me wrong - I felt horrible for him and would have loved to have rescued him or just given him a hug, but the other characters were more alive in a sense than he, or maybe they were just more relatable.
I also loved dear little Eva and the younger Master George. Stowe does a good job of portraying the issue through the eyes of innocent children, who see right and wrong much more clearly than most of the adults. The story also did pick up and made me want to see what happens to everyone, and I managed to finish it quickly despite all of the sermons she injects.
I don't want to harp too much more on the writing style problems, but my edition has a few excerpts from reviews at the time and I thought this part from North American Review was quite funny: "Whatever may be the literary merits of Uncle Tom, they do not account for its success. It exhibits by no means the highest order of genius or skill. It is not to be named in comparison with the novels of Scott or Dickens; and in regard to variety of knowledge, eloquence, imaginative power, and spirited deleations of life and character, manners and events, it is inferior even to those of Bulwer, or Currer Bell, or Hawthorne."
How hilarious is it that this reviewer says it's inferior even to Charlotte Bronte or Nathaniel Hawthorne! As though they are rather inferior writers to begin with, and Stowe is so bad she can't even compare to them! I couldn't help but laugh. It's also funny that he ranks Scott above them as well, and I think most people today would rate Bronte and Hawthorne above him. How tastes and standards change!
There is also a bit from Dickens himself, saying how much he liked the work, but feels she went a bit too far and tries to prove too much, which sort of sums up my own feelings. I would recommend the book to other people though, and think it is an important book to read solely for its history.
Friday, March 2, 2012
The Wizard of Oz
Magical March has just begun and I've already managed to finish my first book! Woohoo! Adam at Roof Beam Reader is hosting Magical March, and I signed up for the highest level - 8+ books! Since I'm still trying to wrap up Uncle Tom's Cabin from last month's reading, I decided to go with something light while I finish that up, and so I started with The Wizard of Oz.
It's strange to me that I'd never read any of the Oz books. I think part of the reason is that I know one time when I looked for them at a bookstore long ago, they didn't carry them, and the library didn't have them, and this was in the dark ages pre-Amazon and easy online ordering so I must have just given up. Now I have the whole collection on my Nook, although I read this story in a hard copy I picked up somewhere along the way.
I LOVE the movie version of The Wizard of Oz, and I saw a musical version in the West End in London on my 30th birthday this past November and adored the performance. After seeing the movie for the first time when I was just 4 or 5, my aunt made the mistake of asking me what it was about and I apparently reenacted the whole movie for her. :) So, even though, books are usually better than movies, I was a bit hesitant over this one. I knew I'd be picturing the movie and stage performance the whole time. And I was - most of the time anyway.
However, that didn't stop me from enjoying it. It was great to see old friends and read about their adventures. There were quite a few differences, primarily of things that happen in the book that don't make the movie even though it's a slim little book.
Here are a few of the differences that stuck out most to me:
It's strange to me that I'd never read any of the Oz books. I think part of the reason is that I know one time when I looked for them at a bookstore long ago, they didn't carry them, and the library didn't have them, and this was in the dark ages pre-Amazon and easy online ordering so I must have just given up. Now I have the whole collection on my Nook, although I read this story in a hard copy I picked up somewhere along the way.
I LOVE the movie version of The Wizard of Oz, and I saw a musical version in the West End in London on my 30th birthday this past November and adored the performance. After seeing the movie for the first time when I was just 4 or 5, my aunt made the mistake of asking me what it was about and I apparently reenacted the whole movie for her. :) So, even though, books are usually better than movies, I was a bit hesitant over this one. I knew I'd be picturing the movie and stage performance the whole time. And I was - most of the time anyway.
However, that didn't stop me from enjoying it. It was great to see old friends and read about their adventures. There were quite a few differences, primarily of things that happen in the book that don't make the movie even though it's a slim little book.
Here are a few of the differences that stuck out most to me:
- There are no songs! I knew most of these were probably added for the movie, but I was surprised there was no greeting from the munchkins or "Follow the Yellow Brick Road."
- The ruby slippers are silver!!! This was actually familiar to me. I think that there was something about this in the Smithsonian describing the display with the ruby slippers from the movie. They wanted to show off technicolor.
- Dorothy doesn't say "There's no place like at home" at the end. She says "Take me home to Aunt Em!" Not nearly as catchy.
- There's a wonderful back story about the Tin Man and how he used to be human, although it's a bit grotesque as the Wicked Witch causes him to cut off all of his body parts until he's made entirely of tin. It sort of reminded me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. "It's only a flesh wound!"
- Glinda is the Good Witch from the South, not the North. She's not the same as the Good Witch from the North that appears at the beginning. (Side note: The Glinda in the West End performance had the most spectacular dress ever. Seriously. That thing was nothing but bling. It was like she was wearing a million glittering diamonds in a swishy dress form. I want to wear that thing just once!)
- The Wizard fools people through ventriloquism, acting, and puppetry, not sound and technology effects, which I suppose wouldn't have been invented yet.
- The group goes on many adventures that don't make it in to the movie - they deal with mice, Winkies, half bear half tiger creatures, and others.
- They visit a literal chinatown, where everything is made of china - including the people and animals. If they are taking to the real world, they freeze, turning into dolls.
- The Emerald City is emerald because everyone wears green glasses.
- The opening is very short - there's no evil neighbor trying to get Toto.
- The Winged Monkeys get a backstory too, and have way more depth than in the movie/play.
- There are no uncles, which is a good thing, because I hate how the movie makes it all seem like a dream. It wasn't a dream. It totally happened!
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The Suppliants
I planned to read Herodutus' Histories this month as part of Jean's Greek Classics Challenge. That didn't happen! I do hope to read it this year still, but instead I've kept trying to work my way through Eurpides' plays.
The Suppliants is about a group of grieving mothers who lost their sons in the battle of seven against Thebes, which is the topic of Aeschylus' aptly named play Seven Against Thebes. I think it helped that I had read that play before and at least had a vague idea of what happened and some of the major plays even though I didn't remember most of the details. This play kind of assumes you already have that knowledge, which you would have if you were a Greek playgoer back then.
The mothers go to Theseus for his help in getting their sons' bodies back, which he does. He even goes as far as to prepare the bodies for burial himself, which was a great honor. It was extremely important to the Greeks to have a proper burial as they believed that affected the afterlife.
One of the things that stuck out to me the most from this play is the idea that we should look to the gods for the answers and not try to take over their roles, yet the play had much less influence and presence of the gods than many other Greek tragedies. For example, Theseus says "Are we not then too proud, when heaven hath made such preparation for our life, not to be content therewith? But our presumption seeks to lord it over heaven, and in the pride of our hearts we think we are wiser than the gods."
I found this striking, because it seemed to me that while Theseus says this, he then relies on his own wisdom and the people of Athens to make a decision, without calling on the gods. (Unless I overlooked that, which is entirely possible.) Only at the very end of the play does Athena make an appearance, and it's not to interfere. I know Euripides as a whole uses the gods much less in his plays than Aeschylus or Sophocles, so I wonder if this was a way of ironically saying we are wiser than the gods? After all, the Greek gods weren't exactly the infalliable, moral paragon God of the Judeo-Christian world, so who is to say that the gods were smarter than the humans? Or maybe it's just an example of "do what I say, not what I do," but even if I don't quite know for sure what he was trying to say, it gave me something to think about about and I enjoyed his play as a whole.
The Suppliants is about a group of grieving mothers who lost their sons in the battle of seven against Thebes, which is the topic of Aeschylus' aptly named play Seven Against Thebes. I think it helped that I had read that play before and at least had a vague idea of what happened and some of the major plays even though I didn't remember most of the details. This play kind of assumes you already have that knowledge, which you would have if you were a Greek playgoer back then.
The mothers go to Theseus for his help in getting their sons' bodies back, which he does. He even goes as far as to prepare the bodies for burial himself, which was a great honor. It was extremely important to the Greeks to have a proper burial as they believed that affected the afterlife.
One of the things that stuck out to me the most from this play is the idea that we should look to the gods for the answers and not try to take over their roles, yet the play had much less influence and presence of the gods than many other Greek tragedies. For example, Theseus says "Are we not then too proud, when heaven hath made such preparation for our life, not to be content therewith? But our presumption seeks to lord it over heaven, and in the pride of our hearts we think we are wiser than the gods."
I found this striking, because it seemed to me that while Theseus says this, he then relies on his own wisdom and the people of Athens to make a decision, without calling on the gods. (Unless I overlooked that, which is entirely possible.) Only at the very end of the play does Athena make an appearance, and it's not to interfere. I know Euripides as a whole uses the gods much less in his plays than Aeschylus or Sophocles, so I wonder if this was a way of ironically saying we are wiser than the gods? After all, the Greek gods weren't exactly the infalliable, moral paragon God of the Judeo-Christian world, so who is to say that the gods were smarter than the humans? Or maybe it's just an example of "do what I say, not what I do," but even if I don't quite know for sure what he was trying to say, it gave me something to think about about and I enjoyed his play as a whole.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Clarissa - Feb Post
Terri at Tip of the Iceberg and JoAnn at Lakeside Musing are co-hosting a Clarissa readalong if you want to join in - there's plenty of time to catch up!
The reading so far for Clarissa has been deceptively light. I'm afraid this is going to mean some heavy hitting months later in the year! That's one disadvantage to reading this on my Nook - I can't flip around easily to see how long each section is. Plus, the free public domain version I downloaded is in separate volumes, which is nice when looking at the smaller page count for each, but is again deceptive since that's only for one of nine volumes!
As for the actual letters, there wasn't much to read in February, but I think that did add to the story. Clarissa is blocked from sending or receiving letters to her friend and must find an alternate way to do so, and letter delivery would be slower then, so that adds to the realism of the reading the story this way.
One thing this month's letters made me question is how reliable a narrator is Clarissa? This is always an issue with epistolary novels. Do we believe everything our letter writers tell us? Is Clarissa's perspective true, or only true in her eyes? Is her family justified or even acting as horribly as she says, or is she writing them to be worse than they are because she's unhappy? We're told again and again of Clarissa's virtues, but that comes from her best friend. From having read Pamela, also by Richardson, I'm guessing that he wants us to take Clarissa's perspective at face value and believe her, but I tend to be more like Henry Fielding, who wrote a parady of Pamela, and want to think about what was more likely to be the case. This is probably why I prefer Fielding's writing to Richardson's, but oh well. Maybe after finishing Clarissa I will finally read Tom Jones!
The reading so far for Clarissa has been deceptively light. I'm afraid this is going to mean some heavy hitting months later in the year! That's one disadvantage to reading this on my Nook - I can't flip around easily to see how long each section is. Plus, the free public domain version I downloaded is in separate volumes, which is nice when looking at the smaller page count for each, but is again deceptive since that's only for one of nine volumes!
As for the actual letters, there wasn't much to read in February, but I think that did add to the story. Clarissa is blocked from sending or receiving letters to her friend and must find an alternate way to do so, and letter delivery would be slower then, so that adds to the realism of the reading the story this way.
One thing this month's letters made me question is how reliable a narrator is Clarissa? This is always an issue with epistolary novels. Do we believe everything our letter writers tell us? Is Clarissa's perspective true, or only true in her eyes? Is her family justified or even acting as horribly as she says, or is she writing them to be worse than they are because she's unhappy? We're told again and again of Clarissa's virtues, but that comes from her best friend. From having read Pamela, also by Richardson, I'm guessing that he wants us to take Clarissa's perspective at face value and believe her, but I tend to be more like Henry Fielding, who wrote a parady of Pamela, and want to think about what was more likely to be the case. This is probably why I prefer Fielding's writing to Richardson's, but oh well. Maybe after finishing Clarissa I will finally read Tom Jones!
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Uncle Tom's Cabin: Worth It?
I've been trying to read Uncle Tom's Cabin, but I haven't made it past page 60. I know this is one of the most famous and widely read works of American literature. Practically the whole country read it during the Civil War. Many people loved it, and many people on both sides hated it. The controversy over it and its historical significance made me want to read it.
On starting it, however, I just can't get into it. The writing is awful! Where one adjective would do, Stowe uses four. She makes Dickens look subtle when it comes to pushing an agenda. And the dialect is pretty much incomprehensible. I don't always like reading dialects, but I'm usually good at reading Southern dialects since I'm from Oklahoma, where people have Southern-ish accents and I've traveled a lot in the deep South. But with this, I'm having to reread sentences several times to figure out what they're actually saying. The characters are all so flat and stereotypical too, and the minor characters are indistinguishable.
With about 400 pages left, I'm wondering if it's worth finishing? I may end up just setting it aside and trying again at another time, but I'm curious as to what other people think.
On starting it, however, I just can't get into it. The writing is awful! Where one adjective would do, Stowe uses four. She makes Dickens look subtle when it comes to pushing an agenda. And the dialect is pretty much incomprehensible. I don't always like reading dialects, but I'm usually good at reading Southern dialects since I'm from Oklahoma, where people have Southern-ish accents and I've traveled a lot in the deep South. But with this, I'm having to reread sentences several times to figure out what they're actually saying. The characters are all so flat and stereotypical too, and the minor characters are indistinguishable.
With about 400 pages left, I'm wondering if it's worth finishing? I may end up just setting it aside and trying again at another time, but I'm curious as to what other people think.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Tom Sawyer
When I was organizing my TBR stacks, I wasn't quite sure where to put my copy of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn. I knew I'd read the abridged children's versions a million times, but I honestly wasn't sure if I'd read the unabridged works. I was pretty sure I had, but since I couldn't quite remember, I thought I should go ahead and read them to make sure I had!
In reading (re-reading?) Tom Sawyer, I realized that it really is a book I'm glad I discovered and read as a child. I loved Tom as a child and his crazy adventures. As an adult, I sort of want to give him a beating and ground him for life. He starts off just sweetly mischievous, tricking other kids into doing his chores for him. But as he goes on to run away, hurt his loved ones, endanger Becky and more, I just got a little bored with his antics.
Since Huck Finn is the more grown up out of the two novels, I'm hoping I enjoy revisiting the story more! Plus, I liked Huck Finn best out of the characters in Tom Sawyer. I especially liked where Huck talks about the trappings on civilized life, how claustrophobic and trapped it can make you feel. Although I'm not an outdoorsy type at all and love my life, sometimes you do just feel trapped by the trappings of adulthood - the mortgage, the job, the bills, the worrying about other people, laundry. Sometimes you just want to run away to the woods and all the responsibilities, but like Huck, you realize that has it's own set of problems and well, I really like running water and electricity and even most of my responsibilities. :)
In reading (re-reading?) Tom Sawyer, I realized that it really is a book I'm glad I discovered and read as a child. I loved Tom as a child and his crazy adventures. As an adult, I sort of want to give him a beating and ground him for life. He starts off just sweetly mischievous, tricking other kids into doing his chores for him. But as he goes on to run away, hurt his loved ones, endanger Becky and more, I just got a little bored with his antics.
Since Huck Finn is the more grown up out of the two novels, I'm hoping I enjoy revisiting the story more! Plus, I liked Huck Finn best out of the characters in Tom Sawyer. I especially liked where Huck talks about the trappings on civilized life, how claustrophobic and trapped it can make you feel. Although I'm not an outdoorsy type at all and love my life, sometimes you do just feel trapped by the trappings of adulthood - the mortgage, the job, the bills, the worrying about other people, laundry. Sometimes you just want to run away to the woods and all the responsibilities, but like Huck, you realize that has it's own set of problems and well, I really like running water and electricity and even most of my responsibilities. :)
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
The Color Purple
Wow. Wow wow wow. Have you read The Color Purple? If not, go get on it!!! I've had this on my shelf for YEARS. Like I bought in high school kind of years ago. My junior year English teacher recommended Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston to me, and the introduction in my edition talked about how Alice Walker basically rediscovered Hurston - both her works and her gravesite, which had been unmarked. One I read and fell in love with Their Eyes Were Watching God, I wanted to thank Walker by reading her work. But for some reason it set on my shelf for a while, then I read Morrison and don't love her the way most people do and I was afraid I'd feel the same way about Walker and so I've put it off.
Since I'm trying to read all of the unread books I own and it's Black History Month, I made a stack of books by African-American authors from my shelves and decided to start with The Color Purple. And I'm so glad I FINALLY read this!
Walker creates an amazing story of Celie, drawing you right into the action. It starts off like a train wreck you just can't look away from as she tells her horrible story in a matter of fact manner. Something about her just sucks you and I couldn't stop reading. Dialect doesn't always work, but much like it works in Their Eyes Were Watching God, it clearly works here. The letters show the clear differences between Celie and Nettie, two sisters writing each other. They each have a distinct voice that shines through.
The Color Purple is more than a novel about race - it's about gender, will and humanity. What makes a person strong? What is the best way to show strength - through fighting or turning the other cheek? Why are some people so horrible? How can humans treat each other so poorly?
I adored Sofia. She's a spitfire! She's such a contrast to Celie - ain't nobody gonna git her down! She was just so vivid and alive and I identified with her more in the beginning because fighting has always been my first instinct, even if it causes more trouble. It was interesting to watch both Sofia and Celie change and grow through the novel.
Spoiler!
One of the things that surprised me was Nettie becoming a missionary in Africa, and I really enjoyed reading those sections. Seeing her travel to London and have her eyes opened to how blacks can be treated in a white a society (in a good way) and then learning more about African history - the good and the bad. She learns about blacks in biblical times, in Egyptian times, the things they created. And she also learns how Africans participated in the slave trade, selling their fellow Africans. That's one of the things I love about travel - it makes you see things differently, even if it's not always comfortable. I was also surprised that she talks about female genital mutilation. Considering how long ago this book came out and that there's still little attention paid to that subject, that surprised me. I almost wish I was back in school so I could write a paper about all of the feminist stuff in this book! It would be such a great book to teach if I were a teacher (and didn't have to worry about censorship - I'm sure it's not allowed to be taught in most high schools).
Quotes I liked:
"But one thing I do thank her for, for teaching me to learn for myself, by reading and studying and writing a clear hand. And for keeping alive in me somehow the desire to know." Nettie talking about her teacher.
"I think it pisses God off if you walk by the color purple in a field somewhere and don't notice it." Shug - loved her too!
"I think us here to wonder, myself. To wonder. To ast. And that in wondering bout the big things and asting bout the big things, you learn about the little ones, almost by accident. But you never know nothing more about the big things than you start out with. The more I wonder, he say, the more I love." Celie quoting Mr. _____.
If you haven't read this one, give it a try! It might take a little bit to get used to the dialect, but don't let that get to you!
Since I'm trying to read all of the unread books I own and it's Black History Month, I made a stack of books by African-American authors from my shelves and decided to start with The Color Purple. And I'm so glad I FINALLY read this!
Walker creates an amazing story of Celie, drawing you right into the action. It starts off like a train wreck you just can't look away from as she tells her horrible story in a matter of fact manner. Something about her just sucks you and I couldn't stop reading. Dialect doesn't always work, but much like it works in Their Eyes Were Watching God, it clearly works here. The letters show the clear differences between Celie and Nettie, two sisters writing each other. They each have a distinct voice that shines through.
The Color Purple is more than a novel about race - it's about gender, will and humanity. What makes a person strong? What is the best way to show strength - through fighting or turning the other cheek? Why are some people so horrible? How can humans treat each other so poorly?
I adored Sofia. She's a spitfire! She's such a contrast to Celie - ain't nobody gonna git her down! She was just so vivid and alive and I identified with her more in the beginning because fighting has always been my first instinct, even if it causes more trouble. It was interesting to watch both Sofia and Celie change and grow through the novel.
Spoiler!
One of the things that surprised me was Nettie becoming a missionary in Africa, and I really enjoyed reading those sections. Seeing her travel to London and have her eyes opened to how blacks can be treated in a white a society (in a good way) and then learning more about African history - the good and the bad. She learns about blacks in biblical times, in Egyptian times, the things they created. And she also learns how Africans participated in the slave trade, selling their fellow Africans. That's one of the things I love about travel - it makes you see things differently, even if it's not always comfortable. I was also surprised that she talks about female genital mutilation. Considering how long ago this book came out and that there's still little attention paid to that subject, that surprised me. I almost wish I was back in school so I could write a paper about all of the feminist stuff in this book! It would be such a great book to teach if I were a teacher (and didn't have to worry about censorship - I'm sure it's not allowed to be taught in most high schools).
Quotes I liked:
"But one thing I do thank her for, for teaching me to learn for myself, by reading and studying and writing a clear hand. And for keeping alive in me somehow the desire to know." Nettie talking about her teacher.
"I think it pisses God off if you walk by the color purple in a field somewhere and don't notice it." Shug - loved her too!
"I think us here to wonder, myself. To wonder. To ast. And that in wondering bout the big things and asting bout the big things, you learn about the little ones, almost by accident. But you never know nothing more about the big things than you start out with. The more I wonder, he say, the more I love." Celie quoting Mr. _____.
If you haven't read this one, give it a try! It might take a little bit to get used to the dialect, but don't let that get to you!
Saturday, February 4, 2012
The Old Curiosity Shop: The Middle
I'm a little behind on this week's post for Amanda's Charles Dickens Month, although I have been enjoying The Old Curiosity Shop. Hopefully I will manage to finish it up before the final post on Tuesday. Warning - this post has spoilerish things in it from the first half of the book.
At this point, Nell and her grandfather have fled London and the evil dwarf Quilp. It amazes me that they just leave with little money and have to rely on finding odd jobs and the kindness of strangers along the way. I can't really imagine doing that now. It just seems so dangerous.
Along their journey, the meet a plethora of unusual characters. They join fellow travelers putting on a Punch and Judy show and later join a traveling wax works show. It's hard to know who to trust and if they'll be safe. However, Nell soon learns she can't even trust her own grandfather.
It broke my heart when Nell caught her grandfather stealing from her and gambling the money away. He's no better than her brother Fred. This is a reminder that the enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend. Just because he sees that Fred is bad doesn't mean that he's good. It also shows the destruction that a gambling habit can cause. I want to reach in the book and throttle gramps. Ugh. How can he do that to poor little Nell?
Despite this, I'm still really enjoying the story and like that I don't quite know where the story is going. Hopefully I can finish it up this weekend, so back to reading for me!
At this point, Nell and her grandfather have fled London and the evil dwarf Quilp. It amazes me that they just leave with little money and have to rely on finding odd jobs and the kindness of strangers along the way. I can't really imagine doing that now. It just seems so dangerous.
Along their journey, the meet a plethora of unusual characters. They join fellow travelers putting on a Punch and Judy show and later join a traveling wax works show. It's hard to know who to trust and if they'll be safe. However, Nell soon learns she can't even trust her own grandfather.
It broke my heart when Nell caught her grandfather stealing from her and gambling the money away. He's no better than her brother Fred. This is a reminder that the enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend. Just because he sees that Fred is bad doesn't mean that he's good. It also shows the destruction that a gambling habit can cause. I want to reach in the book and throttle gramps. Ugh. How can he do that to poor little Nell?
Despite this, I'm still really enjoying the story and like that I don't quite know where the story is going. Hopefully I can finish it up this weekend, so back to reading for me!
Thursday, February 2, 2012
The Prince
Ryan, my husband, is currently going back to school to become a history teacher. In one of his classes he has to read The Prince, so I decided to read it with him. It was nice to be able to talk about it with him after we both finished!
One of the fun things about reading this was the references to Francesco Sforza. I had happened to read a National Geographic article about the Sforza family the night before I started The Prince. It's weird how things like that happen. That's one of the things I like most about reading - all of the connections.
Overall, I really liked most of the points Machiavelli makes. I think the book gets a bad rap based on just a few of his points, or some of his points taken out of context. Ryan mentioned that someone in his class described Maciavelli as amoral, not immoral, and that seems accurate.
He talks a lot about the importance of planning: "When trouble is sensed in advance it can easily be remedied; if you wait for it to show itself any medicine will be too late because the disease will have become incurable." How often do we let problems go until they develop into some massive issue? It's usually so much better if we think ahead and address things before they get out of control.
I also thought this was interesting: "you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow." I think this is something people miss about the second amendment - it's there so the people have a way to protect themselves from the government. If the government tries to take over the people, like what happened in Soviet Russia, people who are armed can prevent that, just like how the Americans rebelled against the British. When you take away people's arms, you take away that protective barrier.
He also talks about how you will fail if you use another army to fight your battles. This made me think of the Middle East and all the conflict there that is probably made worse with outside intervention. His example was that Rome fell when they started using the Goths as their army. The Goths eventually turned on them and took over.
This was a quick little read and even with all the historical references that may not be familiar to everyone, I don't think that would take away from the main points. I'm glad I finally read the whole thing instead of just the excerpts I'd read in various classes!
One of the fun things about reading this was the references to Francesco Sforza. I had happened to read a National Geographic article about the Sforza family the night before I started The Prince. It's weird how things like that happen. That's one of the things I like most about reading - all of the connections.
Overall, I really liked most of the points Machiavelli makes. I think the book gets a bad rap based on just a few of his points, or some of his points taken out of context. Ryan mentioned that someone in his class described Maciavelli as amoral, not immoral, and that seems accurate.
He talks a lot about the importance of planning: "When trouble is sensed in advance it can easily be remedied; if you wait for it to show itself any medicine will be too late because the disease will have become incurable." How often do we let problems go until they develop into some massive issue? It's usually so much better if we think ahead and address things before they get out of control.
I also thought this was interesting: "you cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow." I think this is something people miss about the second amendment - it's there so the people have a way to protect themselves from the government. If the government tries to take over the people, like what happened in Soviet Russia, people who are armed can prevent that, just like how the Americans rebelled against the British. When you take away people's arms, you take away that protective barrier.
He also talks about how you will fail if you use another army to fight your battles. This made me think of the Middle East and all the conflict there that is probably made worse with outside intervention. His example was that Rome fell when they started using the Goths as their army. The Goths eventually turned on them and took over.
This was a quick little read and even with all the historical references that may not be familiar to everyone, I don't think that would take away from the main points. I'm glad I finally read the whole thing instead of just the excerpts I'd read in various classes!
Friday, January 27, 2012
The Waves
I have finally become a Virginia Woolf fan! I'm not sure if I just needed to encounter her a few times or needed to be in the mood to poetry to "get" her, but I finally get the obsession with her. I may not understand all that she's trying to say, but I understand her appeal.
I read Mrs. Dalloway and To the Lighthouse both a couple of years ago and while I liked both to some extent, I just didn't connect with Woolf. I prefer my novels to have at least character or plot, if not both! Woolf usually seems to have neither. But what she does have is beautiful, amazing language. And I finally got that this time, with The Waves.
I think it might be helpful to others coming to Woolf for the first time or who didn't like her at first to think of her as a poet, not a novelist. The Waves is really a book of poetry, not a novel. It doesn't matter if you can't quite figure out what's going on all the time or who's talking. What matters is the images she makes you see, the feelings she invokes.
The Waves covers the lives of a group of children as they grow up, age, and die. It compares life to the waves of the ocean, going in and out, ebbing and flowing. The children begin full of imagination and possibility. They truly believe if they close their eyes and believe hard enough, they can be anything, even a tree. Going to school begins to beat this out of you.
"So each night I tear off the old day from the calendar, and screw it tight into a ball...I revenge myself upon the day...You are dead now, I say, school day, hated day." Oh, how I have felt that way when I made a heavy line through a day on the calendar, either during a bad time at school or at work. This is what matters in the book, this feeling parts like this make you feel, not what happened to cause one of the characters feel this way.
One of the things I did feel that Woolf was saas that saying though was that we keep rushing forward to the next station in life, not realizing that in doing so we're rushing toward death. Makes you want to slow down! While every new day as a child is an adventure, every day begins to run together as an adult. You get up, you go to work, you come home, repeat, repeat, repeat. You can feel that monotony weigh down the characters toward the end. This work made me want to recapture some of that feeling of childhood - of viewing each day as an adventure.
I read Mrs. Dalloway and To the Lighthouse both a couple of years ago and while I liked both to some extent, I just didn't connect with Woolf. I prefer my novels to have at least character or plot, if not both! Woolf usually seems to have neither. But what she does have is beautiful, amazing language. And I finally got that this time, with The Waves.
I think it might be helpful to others coming to Woolf for the first time or who didn't like her at first to think of her as a poet, not a novelist. The Waves is really a book of poetry, not a novel. It doesn't matter if you can't quite figure out what's going on all the time or who's talking. What matters is the images she makes you see, the feelings she invokes.
The Waves covers the lives of a group of children as they grow up, age, and die. It compares life to the waves of the ocean, going in and out, ebbing and flowing. The children begin full of imagination and possibility. They truly believe if they close their eyes and believe hard enough, they can be anything, even a tree. Going to school begins to beat this out of you.
"So each night I tear off the old day from the calendar, and screw it tight into a ball...I revenge myself upon the day...You are dead now, I say, school day, hated day." Oh, how I have felt that way when I made a heavy line through a day on the calendar, either during a bad time at school or at work. This is what matters in the book, this feeling parts like this make you feel, not what happened to cause one of the characters feel this way.
One of the things I did feel that Woolf was saas that saying though was that we keep rushing forward to the next station in life, not realizing that in doing so we're rushing toward death. Makes you want to slow down! While every new day as a child is an adventure, every day begins to run together as an adult. You get up, you go to work, you come home, repeat, repeat, repeat. You can feel that monotony weigh down the characters toward the end. This work made me want to recapture some of that feeling of childhood - of viewing each day as an adventure.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Euripides
In my quest to read all of the books I own, quite a few ancient works stand in my way! First up is a volume of all of Euripides' and Aristophanes' plays. Fortunately, I've read quite a few of them already so I don't have to read their entire works right now, but I've started working my way through Euripides. I haven't gotten as much out of these as I have some of the other Greek plays, so I'm just doing mini-reviews. Maybe I've read all the good ones already? I did read a lot in my Greek tragedies class for my MA...Anyway, fortunately Jean at Howling Frog Books is hosting a Greek Classic Challenge and hopefully that will help me keep working my way through all the Greek classics on my shelves!
Rhesus
I had couldn't remember hearing of Rhesus, but apparently he's in the Illiad. He's one of the Trojan soldiers. I thought this play was funny because they talk about how horrible Odysseus is, that he's such a sneak and won't fight face-to-face, but he was a Greek and this was written by a Greek. I suppose that's why in the end he wins and kills Rhesus, the mighty warrior. :)
"Among mortals the same man is not dowered by nature with universal knowledge; each hath his special gift appointed him, thine is arms, another's is sage counsel." I thought it was interesting that even back then they recognized that different people have different types of gifts.
The Cyclops
This is the only satyr play we have an example of, which was a fourth humorous play shown after a series of three tragedies in ancient Greek theatre. This really just told the story of Odysseus and the Cyclops, so I felt like I was missing something.
Heracleidae
This is about the children of Herakles, who are seeking protection after the death of their father. Eurystheus wants to kill them to prevent them for taking revenge upon him. A maiden must be sacrificed to ensure their safety and keep the city safe as it fights for them. Macaria, one of the daughters, volunteers. However, their mother helps capture Eurystheus, and they plan to kill him and they'll all be safe.
Rhesus
I had couldn't remember hearing of Rhesus, but apparently he's in the Illiad. He's one of the Trojan soldiers. I thought this play was funny because they talk about how horrible Odysseus is, that he's such a sneak and won't fight face-to-face, but he was a Greek and this was written by a Greek. I suppose that's why in the end he wins and kills Rhesus, the mighty warrior. :)
"Among mortals the same man is not dowered by nature with universal knowledge; each hath his special gift appointed him, thine is arms, another's is sage counsel." I thought it was interesting that even back then they recognized that different people have different types of gifts.
The Cyclops
This is the only satyr play we have an example of, which was a fourth humorous play shown after a series of three tragedies in ancient Greek theatre. This really just told the story of Odysseus and the Cyclops, so I felt like I was missing something.
Heracleidae
This is about the children of Herakles, who are seeking protection after the death of their father. Eurystheus wants to kill them to prevent them for taking revenge upon him. A maiden must be sacrificed to ensure their safety and keep the city safe as it fights for them. Macaria, one of the daughters, volunteers. However, their mother helps capture Eurystheus, and they plan to kill him and they'll all be safe.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Shakespeare's Poetry
Allie is hosting a Shakespeare Reading Month, so it seemed like a good time for me to finish reading the complete works of Shakespeare! In planning my trip to England last year, I told myself I couldn't visit Stratford-Upon-Avon until I'd read all his plays, so I finished those last year, but I couldn't finish up his long poems. Now seemed like a good time to remedy that, especially since I've been in more of a poetry mood this year.
I'm not sure why I dreaded reading Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece so much. I like epic poems like the Illiad and the Odyessey, the Aeneid, the Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost. And I like Shakespeare! But still, I dreaded reading these.
I'll admit I didn't get a lot out of Venus and Adonis. I think it can be read on two levels, as a poem of lust or a poem of love. I noticed a lot of the sweet phrases could also have a dirtier meaning! :) I kept stopping and going, "Um, does he mean what I think he means or is my mind in the gutter???" It was kind of funny.
My favorite lines were probably these:
"Love comforteth like sunshine after rain,
But Lust's effect is tempest after sun;
Love's gentle spring doth always fresh remain,
Lust's winter comes ere summer half be done;
Love surfeits not, Lust like a glutton dies;
Love is all truth, Lust full of forged lies." 799-804
Apparently this poem was very popular during Shakespeare's life, which now that I think about it, makes me think that's pretty good evidence of Shakespeare writing the plays. Edward de Vere or Bacon could have realeased this poem without a problem, so why would they have put it out under Shakespeare's name? And if Shakespeare can write this and The Rape of Lucrece, why can't he have written the plays? They clearly seem to have been written by the same person. Hmmm.
As for The Rape of Lucrece, a 30-page poem about a rape doesn't sound that great, but I actually really liked the poem. It has a fantastically horrible villain that definitely seems similar to Richard III or some of the other great villains. Lucrece is so pure and focused on her love of her husband, like some of his later female characters, like Isabella from Measure to Measure. Tarquin offers Lucrece a choice - have sex with me willingly or I'll rape you, kill you, and kill another man and make it look like you two were doing it and I killed you both in defense of your husband. How evil is that?
The language Shakespeare uses when Tarquin first enters Lucrece's room is wonderful:
"Into the chamber wickedly he stalks,
And gazeth on her yet unstained bed.
The curatins being close, about he walks,
Rolling his greedy eyeballs in his head.
By their high treason is his heart misled,
Which gives the watch-word to his hand full swoon
To draw the cloud that hides the silver moon." 365-371
Both poems were surprisingly readable. I'm not sure if that's because by this point I'm fairly used to Shakespeare's language or if they may actually be a good starting point for someone who wants to read more Shakespeare but has trouble following all the plot in some of the plays because of the language. Both poems have fairly basic plots, so you can just soak in the language. I'm very excited to have finally read all of the works currently ascribed to Shakespeare!!!
I'm not sure why I dreaded reading Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece so much. I like epic poems like the Illiad and the Odyessey, the Aeneid, the Divine Comedy and Paradise Lost. And I like Shakespeare! But still, I dreaded reading these.
I'll admit I didn't get a lot out of Venus and Adonis. I think it can be read on two levels, as a poem of lust or a poem of love. I noticed a lot of the sweet phrases could also have a dirtier meaning! :) I kept stopping and going, "Um, does he mean what I think he means or is my mind in the gutter???" It was kind of funny.
My favorite lines were probably these:
"Love comforteth like sunshine after rain,
But Lust's effect is tempest after sun;
Love's gentle spring doth always fresh remain,
Lust's winter comes ere summer half be done;
Love surfeits not, Lust like a glutton dies;
Love is all truth, Lust full of forged lies." 799-804
Apparently this poem was very popular during Shakespeare's life, which now that I think about it, makes me think that's pretty good evidence of Shakespeare writing the plays. Edward de Vere or Bacon could have realeased this poem without a problem, so why would they have put it out under Shakespeare's name? And if Shakespeare can write this and The Rape of Lucrece, why can't he have written the plays? They clearly seem to have been written by the same person. Hmmm.
As for The Rape of Lucrece, a 30-page poem about a rape doesn't sound that great, but I actually really liked the poem. It has a fantastically horrible villain that definitely seems similar to Richard III or some of the other great villains. Lucrece is so pure and focused on her love of her husband, like some of his later female characters, like Isabella from Measure to Measure. Tarquin offers Lucrece a choice - have sex with me willingly or I'll rape you, kill you, and kill another man and make it look like you two were doing it and I killed you both in defense of your husband. How evil is that?
The language Shakespeare uses when Tarquin first enters Lucrece's room is wonderful:
"Into the chamber wickedly he stalks,
And gazeth on her yet unstained bed.
The curatins being close, about he walks,
Rolling his greedy eyeballs in his head.
By their high treason is his heart misled,
Which gives the watch-word to his hand full swoon
To draw the cloud that hides the silver moon." 365-371
Both poems were surprisingly readable. I'm not sure if that's because by this point I'm fairly used to Shakespeare's language or if they may actually be a good starting point for someone who wants to read more Shakespeare but has trouble following all the plot in some of the plays because of the language. Both poems have fairly basic plots, so you can just soak in the language. I'm very excited to have finally read all of the works currently ascribed to Shakespeare!!!
Friday, January 13, 2012
A Classics Challenge: E.M. Forster
November's Autumn is hosting A Classics Challenge and this month's prompt is on authors. As I just finished A Room with A View for this challenge (thoughts coming Monday!) and plan to read Howard's End this year, it was interesting to learn a little more about E.M. Forster.
Level 1
Who is the author? What do they look like? When were they born? Where did they live? What does their handwriting look like? What are some of the other novels they've written? What is an interesting and random fact about their life?
E.M. Forster was Anglo-Irish and Welch but was born in London in 1879. He was a "peripheral" member of the Bloosmbury Group, although he seems to have a quite different writing style, maybe because he would have been a little older than the writers that were part of that group that I'm most familiar with. He volunteered for the Red Cross during WWI, going to Egypt.
Level 2
What do you think of their writing style? What do you like about it? or what would have made you more inclined to like it? Is there are particular quote that has stood out to you?
I found Forster's writing style very accessible and not too stuffy. I liked, but I think I'll save my thoughts on this for my review post on Monday.
Level 3
Why do you think they wrote this novel? How did their contemporaries view both the author and their novel?
Forster wanted to explore class distinctions and how they affect society, and how they were becoming more fluid. Forster wrote during a major time of tranistion, when we were moving from the Victorian to the modern period and I think he needed to write about that change.
As far as reception goes, I thought this bit from Wikipedia was interesting: "In the United States, interest in, and appreciation for, Forster was spurred by Lionel Trilling's E. M. Forster: A Study, which began:
E. M. Forster is for me the only living novelist who can be read again and again and who, after each reading, gives me what few writers can give us after our first days of novel-reading, the sensation of having learned something (Trilling 1943)."
Level 1
Who is the author? What do they look like? When were they born? Where did they live? What does their handwriting look like? What are some of the other novels they've written? What is an interesting and random fact about their life?
E.M. Forster was Anglo-Irish and Welch but was born in London in 1879. He was a "peripheral" member of the Bloosmbury Group, although he seems to have a quite different writing style, maybe because he would have been a little older than the writers that were part of that group that I'm most familiar with. He volunteered for the Red Cross during WWI, going to Egypt.
Level 2
What do you think of their writing style? What do you like about it? or what would have made you more inclined to like it? Is there are particular quote that has stood out to you?
I found Forster's writing style very accessible and not too stuffy. I liked, but I think I'll save my thoughts on this for my review post on Monday.
Level 3
Why do you think they wrote this novel? How did their contemporaries view both the author and their novel?
Forster wanted to explore class distinctions and how they affect society, and how they were becoming more fluid. Forster wrote during a major time of tranistion, when we were moving from the Victorian to the modern period and I think he needed to write about that change.
As far as reception goes, I thought this bit from Wikipedia was interesting: "In the United States, interest in, and appreciation for, Forster was spurred by Lionel Trilling's E. M. Forster: A Study, which began:
E. M. Forster is for me the only living novelist who can be read again and again and who, after each reading, gives me what few writers can give us after our first days of novel-reading, the sensation of having learned something (Trilling 1943)."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)