This is yet another book I picked up at a library book sale years ago, and it has lingered sadly on my shelves once I realized it was by Ray Bradbury. I just liked the title and in the mad rush to grab cheap books by the bag full, I hadn't looked at it too closely. I'm glad I didn't, and that I finally read it because I really liked it!
A little background: I had to read Fahrenheit 451 my sophomore year of high school - when I had a teacher I called Mrs. Satan. She was seriously not right in the head. We spent probably two whole months on this short work. We had to find all of the allusions in it - I found over 400! And yet, I ended up with a C on the assignment because on a different assignment, we had to write about which character we identified with the most, and I picked someone who wouldn't have been able to come up with that many allusions, so I got Cs on both assignments!!! Oh, I was so angry. And clearly I'm still a little angry about it! Anyway, I reread it not that long ago, and I still didn't really enjoy it. I felt Bradbury's writing was a little weak and the story just wasn't really developed. So, I didn't have high hopes for Something Wicked this Way Comes.
But...I was so wrong! I ended up really enjoying it. It's about two 13-year-old boys who stumble upon the dark deeds happening at a creepy carnival and get mixed up in some crazy stuff, along with the dad of one of the boys. It kept me hooked and was a fast read - I read all but the first chapter in one day. I loved the descriptions and scenes in the library, about how the library takes you to far away lands and worlds and times. You get to become a warrior, a prince, a president and experience things you can't experience in real life.
One thing I found interesting was how much parts of the book reminded me of the movie Big. The stories overall are completely different, and the tone of this is much darker than Big, but I'm pretty sure whoever wrote Big must have read this and thought "I wonder what would happen if..." even if they did it subconsciously. Both have start with a creepy carnival scene at night, and both involve aging machines, and it was just something in the descriptions that made me keep thinking about Big.
Speaking of movies, as I was reading I kept thinking that this really seemed more like a movie. It was very easy to visualize each chapter as a scene, and the only rough parts in the writing were spots were I thought it would be easier to see the action play out on screen that to write out a description about it. Oddly enough, in the epilogue Bradbury says it was originally a screenplay (well, originally, it was a start to a short story) and that when that failed, he turned it in to a novel. He wrote the screenplay because Gene Kelly wanted him to write something he could play a role in - isn't that funny?
Liking this book makes me want to explore more of Bradbury's backlist. I think The Illustrated Man would be one I want to look into, because he plays a role in this book. Has anyone else read any of his other books? What do you recommend?
This is my sixth book in Adam's Magical March challenge!
Showing posts with label Nineteenth-century fiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nineteenth-century fiction. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
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.
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 15, 2012
The Old Curiosity Shop: The End
I finished another Dickens this week by wrapping up The Old Curiosity Shop. I enjoyed it, but it didn't displace any of my favorites.
I honestly can't say why I enjoyed it overall. Everytime I start writing something, it's really more of a negative. The characters do things that would drive me crazy in any other book. I usually hate to-good-to-be-true characters like Nell. I wanted to shake her almost as much as I wanted to shake her grandfather. Yet, she really didn't have much choice in a lot of her actions, and her grandfather is all she has. We love people despite their faults, even when they make it nearly impossible.
I also felt like this book dragged quite a bit in the middle. Nell and her grandfather travel from place to place and the same sort of things keep happening and I kept wanting Dickens to just get on with it already. We do meet some interesting characters along the way, which makes you manage to keep going, but it just starts getting old after a while.
This book does have one of the best villains. Quilp is an evil dwarf! He is definitely experiencing little-man syndrome and makes everyone around him miserable and shows his power as much as he can. For the Feb. prompt for November's Autumn's Classic Challenge, I thought I would write about him. Katherine's level 3 prompt is to write a paragraph as one of the characters. I kept picturing Quilp as a Gollum-like creature, so that influenced my response.
"Oh, my precious. Whose life shall we ruin today? Hee hee hee," Quilp said while stroking a stack of coins. "Ah, it's so nice to have this shop full of my goods. Mine! It's all mine, preciouses. I think today may be the day to spring the trap on Kit. That will teach him it will. What's that precious? My wretched wife is at the door? Let's hide behind this chair and jump out and beat her. Hee hee hee."
It's not the best paragraph in the world, but it shows how Quilp is only concerned about money and torturing people. I think it's funny that the actor who played Quilp did the voice for one of my favorite characters - Dobby! He also played the Dream Lord in Doctor Who!
I honestly can't say why I enjoyed it overall. Everytime I start writing something, it's really more of a negative. The characters do things that would drive me crazy in any other book. I usually hate to-good-to-be-true characters like Nell. I wanted to shake her almost as much as I wanted to shake her grandfather. Yet, she really didn't have much choice in a lot of her actions, and her grandfather is all she has. We love people despite their faults, even when they make it nearly impossible.
I also felt like this book dragged quite a bit in the middle. Nell and her grandfather travel from place to place and the same sort of things keep happening and I kept wanting Dickens to just get on with it already. We do meet some interesting characters along the way, which makes you manage to keep going, but it just starts getting old after a while.
This book does have one of the best villains. Quilp is an evil dwarf! He is definitely experiencing little-man syndrome and makes everyone around him miserable and shows his power as much as he can. For the Feb. prompt for November's Autumn's Classic Challenge, I thought I would write about him. Katherine's level 3 prompt is to write a paragraph as one of the characters. I kept picturing Quilp as a Gollum-like creature, so that influenced my response.
"Oh, my precious. Whose life shall we ruin today? Hee hee hee," Quilp said while stroking a stack of coins. "Ah, it's so nice to have this shop full of my goods. Mine! It's all mine, preciouses. I think today may be the day to spring the trap on Kit. That will teach him it will. What's that precious? My wretched wife is at the door? Let's hide behind this chair and jump out and beat her. Hee hee hee."
It's not the best paragraph in the world, but it shows how Quilp is only concerned about money and torturing people. I think it's funny that the actor who played Quilp did the voice for one of my favorite characters - Dobby! He also played the Dream Lord in Doctor Who!
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!
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
The Old Curiousity Shop: First Impressions
I'm about 100 pages in to The Old Curiousity Shop by Charles Dickens, and I thought I'd do a post about my first impressions for this week's post for Amanda's Charles Dickens Month celebration. Since Dickens' books usually have quite an array of characters, it will also serve as a way for me to sit down and make sure I know who all the key players are before I get confused!
Nell - So far, sweet little Nell is living up to her reputation as a lovely little girl. When I studied Dickens in one of my college classes I learned that people in America went to the docks to meet the ships coming in with the installment of this book that came right after a cliffhanger - does Nell live or die? I'm glad we can just go to midnight book release parties now instead of waiting in the shipyards for an anticipated release from across the pond!
Mr. Quilp - There's an evil dwarf as a main character??? Why did I not know this? This is giving this book a very fairy tale feel. He's an ugly, mean, arrogant old dwarf who is holding something over Nell.
Mrs. Quilp - Why oh why is a pretty young woman married to Quilp? What did he do to her? And she seems to think he's amazing even though she's terrified of him. She seems like an emotionally abused woman who for some reason won't stand up to him.
Nell's grandfather - I haven't quite figured him out. He definitely cares about Nell, who lives with him. But he's okay with her working too much and being in situations she probably shouldn't be in, plus apparently he owes money to Quilp. However, he does see through Nell's brother, which is good.
Fred - Nell's no good brother. It appears Nell will come in to some money at some point, and Fred wants it. He even comes up with a plan to have one of his no good friends marry her when she's old enough so they can split the money once it comes to her.
Dick Swiveller - Fred's friend and a swindler. He makes a habit of "buying" things he has no intention of paying for and has a list of streets he must avoid because of the shops where he owes money. He's the one Fred is trying to convinve to marry Nell.
Those are the main people so far. Something that I thought was interesting about the beginning of this book is that we start with a narrator who finds Nell on the street and helps guide her back home. There, he meets the key players and introduces us to them. Once that's done, he acknowledges the reader and says now that he's introduced us to the characters, he'll step back. I'm always interested in narration - the point of view an author chooses, if the narrator is involved in the story, if they're reliable, if it's a frame tell or flashback of some sort, etc. I can't really remember reading a set up quite like that before. I wonder if he'll come back at some point later or at the end. I'll soon find out!
Nell - So far, sweet little Nell is living up to her reputation as a lovely little girl. When I studied Dickens in one of my college classes I learned that people in America went to the docks to meet the ships coming in with the installment of this book that came right after a cliffhanger - does Nell live or die? I'm glad we can just go to midnight book release parties now instead of waiting in the shipyards for an anticipated release from across the pond!
Mr. Quilp - There's an evil dwarf as a main character??? Why did I not know this? This is giving this book a very fairy tale feel. He's an ugly, mean, arrogant old dwarf who is holding something over Nell.
Mrs. Quilp - Why oh why is a pretty young woman married to Quilp? What did he do to her? And she seems to think he's amazing even though she's terrified of him. She seems like an emotionally abused woman who for some reason won't stand up to him.
Nell's grandfather - I haven't quite figured him out. He definitely cares about Nell, who lives with him. But he's okay with her working too much and being in situations she probably shouldn't be in, plus apparently he owes money to Quilp. However, he does see through Nell's brother, which is good.
Fred - Nell's no good brother. It appears Nell will come in to some money at some point, and Fred wants it. He even comes up with a plan to have one of his no good friends marry her when she's old enough so they can split the money once it comes to her.
Dick Swiveller - Fred's friend and a swindler. He makes a habit of "buying" things he has no intention of paying for and has a list of streets he must avoid because of the shops where he owes money. He's the one Fred is trying to convinve to marry Nell.
Those are the main people so far. Something that I thought was interesting about the beginning of this book is that we start with a narrator who finds Nell on the street and helps guide her back home. There, he meets the key players and introduces us to them. Once that's done, he acknowledges the reader and says now that he's introduced us to the characters, he'll step back. I'm always interested in narration - the point of view an author chooses, if the narrator is involved in the story, if they're reliable, if it's a frame tell or flashback of some sort, etc. I can't really remember reading a set up quite like that before. I wonder if he'll come back at some point later or at the end. I'll soon find out!
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Mowgli's Brothers and Two Friends
I'm trying to read some of the short story collections I have, and read two very different stories recently!
Mowgli's Brothers by Rudyard Kipling
The Jungle Book is one of my favorite Disney movies. My brother and I watched the heck out of that VHS tape when we were little. So, I’d always thought I’d enjoy reading the original story by Kipling. In encountering Mowgli’s Brothers, I realized I had thought that The Jungle Book was a novel – not a short story collection. And, it’s the same short story collection that contains Rikki Tikki Tavi, which TERRIFIED me as a child. I HATED that mongoose. What’s that you say? The mongoose is the hero? I refuse to believe it! It’s an evil, evil monster, and I was horrified to learn that mongooses (mongeese?) are real! I have absolutely no idea what caused my terror, especially since my mom enjoyed the story because she hates snakes, but I still get the shivers when I hear the name of the book. I actually don’t mind snakes and often held and played with grass snakes when I was younger, so maybe that’s part of it and I felt sorry for them or something. I also remember the evil mongoose having terrifying red eyes that still haunt me. I should probably check it out at the library to see what was so scary, but I’m scared to! :)
So by the time I actually read Mowgli’s Brothers, I was a little on edge having relived my nightmares about Rikki Tikki Tavi. I really did not enjoy Mowgli’s Brothers. I’m not sure how much of that to place on Rikki Tikki Tavi and how much to blame Disney. Disney’s version of The Jungle Book is awesome! There are singing animals, lovable Baloo, the cute little wolves, and Mowgli having fun. Mowgli’s Brothers was much darker and sadly, kind of boring. Kipling skips the interesting stuff about what it would be like to grow up in a wolf pack and skips from Mowgli’s initial appearance as a toddler to his becoming a man and being banished. As a result, there wasn’t much to this story. I know Mowgli continues to make appearances in many other short stories by Kipling, and some of those are used as part of the Disney movie as well, but this just didn’t make me want to go out and read more. There was something very stilted in the language and so many references to the Laws of the Jungle that I felt like I was reading a law text book instead of an adventure story.
Two Friends by Guy de Maupassant
What a sad, tragic little story! It starts off as this uplifting story of friendship and how even in dark times, friends are there and you sometimes just need to go fishing together, to do something familiar and enjoyable to forget the stress of life. And then BOOM! There is no escaping the stress! There is no escaping war! It will find you. I don’t want to spoil this for anyone, but encourage you to check it out. It’s very short, even for a short story!
Mowgli's Brothers by Rudyard Kipling
The Jungle Book is one of my favorite Disney movies. My brother and I watched the heck out of that VHS tape when we were little. So, I’d always thought I’d enjoy reading the original story by Kipling. In encountering Mowgli’s Brothers, I realized I had thought that The Jungle Book was a novel – not a short story collection. And, it’s the same short story collection that contains Rikki Tikki Tavi, which TERRIFIED me as a child. I HATED that mongoose. What’s that you say? The mongoose is the hero? I refuse to believe it! It’s an evil, evil monster, and I was horrified to learn that mongooses (mongeese?) are real! I have absolutely no idea what caused my terror, especially since my mom enjoyed the story because she hates snakes, but I still get the shivers when I hear the name of the book. I actually don’t mind snakes and often held and played with grass snakes when I was younger, so maybe that’s part of it and I felt sorry for them or something. I also remember the evil mongoose having terrifying red eyes that still haunt me. I should probably check it out at the library to see what was so scary, but I’m scared to! :)
So by the time I actually read Mowgli’s Brothers, I was a little on edge having relived my nightmares about Rikki Tikki Tavi. I really did not enjoy Mowgli’s Brothers. I’m not sure how much of that to place on Rikki Tikki Tavi and how much to blame Disney. Disney’s version of The Jungle Book is awesome! There are singing animals, lovable Baloo, the cute little wolves, and Mowgli having fun. Mowgli’s Brothers was much darker and sadly, kind of boring. Kipling skips the interesting stuff about what it would be like to grow up in a wolf pack and skips from Mowgli’s initial appearance as a toddler to his becoming a man and being banished. As a result, there wasn’t much to this story. I know Mowgli continues to make appearances in many other short stories by Kipling, and some of those are used as part of the Disney movie as well, but this just didn’t make me want to go out and read more. There was something very stilted in the language and so many references to the Laws of the Jungle that I felt like I was reading a law text book instead of an adventure story.
Two Friends by Guy de Maupassant
What a sad, tragic little story! It starts off as this uplifting story of friendship and how even in dark times, friends are there and you sometimes just need to go fishing together, to do something familiar and enjoyable to forget the stress of life. And then BOOM! There is no escaping the stress! There is no escaping war! It will find you. I don’t want to spoil this for anyone, but encourage you to check it out. It’s very short, even for a short story!
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Oliver Twist
Woohoo! I finally read Oliver Twist! I think it's odd that I've read so much of Dickens, but never this one. I started it at the beginning of last summer and absolutely could not get in to it, so I quit reading it. I was disappointed, because up until then I'd loved every Dickens' novel I'd read. But it was just so preachy and depressing. I think it was just the wrong time of year or I was in the wrong frame of mind. Stefanie at So Many Books recently posted about if there's a right place to read and the discussion veered toward if there's a right mindset or timeframe to read too. I think Oliver Twist is a winter book, and I simply picked it up at the wrong time.
This time around, I loved it! Yes, it was still a bit preachy, this is Dickens after all, but it didn't bother me. And the characters! Characters are why I love Dickens so much. The first time around, Oliver was just too perfect and honestly a little annoying, but this time I liked him more. The villains are all beautifully written, as is Nancy. I'm glad to finally know who Sikes and Fagin and the Artful Dodger are. You hear their names so often, so it's nice to finally "meet" them.
I felt like this story was more tightly written than other Dickens' works, except for maybe Great Expectations. There seemed to be more of a direction from the beginning, without the sideways rambles that tend to happen in the longer works. That made for a much faster read. Also, Dickens used the phrase "stupid-head" at one point, which was hilarious and awesome.
Spoiler Alert!
Seriously, I wanted to strangle Nancy. I loved the way Dickens wrote her, and it was probably more realistic to give her the ending she got, but I hated that she didn't leave when she had the chance! I have never been able to understand women who stay in abusive relationships. I don't think I ever will. I don't blame the victim, but at the same time, she walked in to her own death. She knew it was dangerous to go back and talked about her death so much she had to suspect it was coming, so she is partially responsible for what happens to her. The other thing that really bugged me was the death of the dog. So unnecessary! Dickens spares him from Sikes, then has him jump to his own death!!! Why??? We got the same point from Nancy's death, we didn't need the poor dog to die so horribly!
End Spoilers!
While Bleak House remains my favorite Dickens' novel so far, I definitely recommend Oliver Twist! This is my second post in celebration of Charles Dickens Month hosted by Amanda at Fig and Thistle. You can read my first post on the Charles Dickens Museum.
This time around, I loved it! Yes, it was still a bit preachy, this is Dickens after all, but it didn't bother me. And the characters! Characters are why I love Dickens so much. The first time around, Oliver was just too perfect and honestly a little annoying, but this time I liked him more. The villains are all beautifully written, as is Nancy. I'm glad to finally know who Sikes and Fagin and the Artful Dodger are. You hear their names so often, so it's nice to finally "meet" them.
I felt like this story was more tightly written than other Dickens' works, except for maybe Great Expectations. There seemed to be more of a direction from the beginning, without the sideways rambles that tend to happen in the longer works. That made for a much faster read. Also, Dickens used the phrase "stupid-head" at one point, which was hilarious and awesome.
Spoiler Alert!
Seriously, I wanted to strangle Nancy. I loved the way Dickens wrote her, and it was probably more realistic to give her the ending she got, but I hated that she didn't leave when she had the chance! I have never been able to understand women who stay in abusive relationships. I don't think I ever will. I don't blame the victim, but at the same time, she walked in to her own death. She knew it was dangerous to go back and talked about her death so much she had to suspect it was coming, so she is partially responsible for what happens to her. The other thing that really bugged me was the death of the dog. So unnecessary! Dickens spares him from Sikes, then has him jump to his own death!!! Why??? We got the same point from Nancy's death, we didn't need the poor dog to die so horribly!
End Spoilers!
While Bleak House remains my favorite Dickens' novel so far, I definitely recommend Oliver Twist! This is my second post in celebration of Charles Dickens Month hosted by Amanda at Fig and Thistle. You can read my first post on the Charles Dickens Museum.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Little Dorrit
I’m afraid Bleak House may have ruined the rest of Dickens’ works for me. I adored Bleak House, and it quickly rose to take a place in my top 10 all time favorite books. (Don’t ask me to actually name the 10, but I’m sure it would make it!) While I’ve enjoyed all of Dickens’ other works, I’ve noticed that since reading BH, I seem to struggle more with any new ones.
I’ve read and loved Great Expectations, A Christmas Carol and David Copperfield. I enjoyed Nicholas Nickleby and the other Christmas stories that are often packaged with A Christmas Carol. But, since reading Bleak House, I’ve started and stopped both Oliver Twist and A Tale of Two Cities. Oliver Twist felt too much like getting a beat over the head about poverty (all of his books have this aspect, but in this one I just wasn’t able to get past this and into the story). A Tale of Two Cities was like reading something by an entirely different author. This should show how skilled he was at writing, but it was just weird for me and wasn’t what I was expecting. I think after adjusting my expectations I should be able to go back and finish both, which is good because I plan to do so in the coming year!
With Little Dorrit, although I did finish it, nothing in the story really grabbed me. The characters didn’t seem to pop off the pages like Dickensian characters usually do. Little Dorrit should inspire more empathy than she did. Yes, I felt sorry for her and wanted her life to be better, but she was just so good it wasn’t believable or interesting. I suppose I like my characters with a bit more fire in them. And the way she worshiped her father just bugged me; he was a likeable guy despite his shortcomings but her attachment to him was borderline creepy.
Dickens isn’t known for creating well-developed female characters, which may be part of the problem with this work. It’s centered around a female, and she’s not nearly as interesting as Esther in BH and can’t carry the work alone. Also, Esther had a cast of amazing surrounding characters, people I can call to memory so clearly that it’s as if I’ve met them in person. I just finished Little Dorrit and struggled to remember some of even the major characters’ names. Most of the side stories were uninteresting and just seemed like filler, a way to get more issues published when this was published in serial form. I was glad the copy I read had a character list at the beginning because I had to keep referring to it because all the characters were so bland. BH is a sprawling novel with a large cast of characters and I never had to do that!
Perhaps it’s not fair to compare Bleak House and Little Dorrit, but Bleak House did appear first. I imagine readers in Victorian England did the same thing. Perhaps part of the problem was that although this is one of his later works, it’s like Dickens went back to his earlier writing style and was just using his characters to prop up a theme dealing with debtors’ prisons. I’m not sure if Dickens even cared for his characters, he just wanted people to see how bad the debtors’ prisons were and do something about them. While I agree with him, and I also don’t always have to care about the characters to enjoy a work, the combination of lack of character development and preaching in such a long work just makes for a less than stellar read.
If you intend to read all of Dickens works, I might recommend saving Bleak House for the end. I think I would enjoy his other works more if I wasn’t comparing them to BH. If you’re just looking to read a Dickens novel or two, then I’d recommend going with Bleak House and either Great Expectations or David Copperfield. Although you should also read A Christmas Carol at least once. It’s short! I’ll be giving Oliver Twist another shot in February in honor of the 200th anniversary of Dickens’ birth, so hopefully that will go better this time!
I’ve read and loved Great Expectations, A Christmas Carol and David Copperfield. I enjoyed Nicholas Nickleby and the other Christmas stories that are often packaged with A Christmas Carol. But, since reading Bleak House, I’ve started and stopped both Oliver Twist and A Tale of Two Cities. Oliver Twist felt too much like getting a beat over the head about poverty (all of his books have this aspect, but in this one I just wasn’t able to get past this and into the story). A Tale of Two Cities was like reading something by an entirely different author. This should show how skilled he was at writing, but it was just weird for me and wasn’t what I was expecting. I think after adjusting my expectations I should be able to go back and finish both, which is good because I plan to do so in the coming year!
With Little Dorrit, although I did finish it, nothing in the story really grabbed me. The characters didn’t seem to pop off the pages like Dickensian characters usually do. Little Dorrit should inspire more empathy than she did. Yes, I felt sorry for her and wanted her life to be better, but she was just so good it wasn’t believable or interesting. I suppose I like my characters with a bit more fire in them. And the way she worshiped her father just bugged me; he was a likeable guy despite his shortcomings but her attachment to him was borderline creepy.
Dickens isn’t known for creating well-developed female characters, which may be part of the problem with this work. It’s centered around a female, and she’s not nearly as interesting as Esther in BH and can’t carry the work alone. Also, Esther had a cast of amazing surrounding characters, people I can call to memory so clearly that it’s as if I’ve met them in person. I just finished Little Dorrit and struggled to remember some of even the major characters’ names. Most of the side stories were uninteresting and just seemed like filler, a way to get more issues published when this was published in serial form. I was glad the copy I read had a character list at the beginning because I had to keep referring to it because all the characters were so bland. BH is a sprawling novel with a large cast of characters and I never had to do that!
Perhaps it’s not fair to compare Bleak House and Little Dorrit, but Bleak House did appear first. I imagine readers in Victorian England did the same thing. Perhaps part of the problem was that although this is one of his later works, it’s like Dickens went back to his earlier writing style and was just using his characters to prop up a theme dealing with debtors’ prisons. I’m not sure if Dickens even cared for his characters, he just wanted people to see how bad the debtors’ prisons were and do something about them. While I agree with him, and I also don’t always have to care about the characters to enjoy a work, the combination of lack of character development and preaching in such a long work just makes for a less than stellar read.
If you intend to read all of Dickens works, I might recommend saving Bleak House for the end. I think I would enjoy his other works more if I wasn’t comparing them to BH. If you’re just looking to read a Dickens novel or two, then I’d recommend going with Bleak House and either Great Expectations or David Copperfield. Although you should also read A Christmas Carol at least once. It’s short! I’ll be giving Oliver Twist another shot in February in honor of the 200th anniversary of Dickens’ birth, so hopefully that will go better this time!
Saturday, August 7, 2010
Anna Karenina
I finally finished Anna Karenina! It took much, much longer than usual for me to read, but I loved it! I already wrote a post on the first half if you'd like to check it out. I think one thing that really struck me in reading the book at this is time is how everyone in it feels trapped. I felt trapped in my own life recently, made a job change, and started my own businsess on the side. You can check out my business and blog on content marketing over at www.sparksmarks.com. I've also jumped on Twitter, so feel free to follow me on Twitter @sparksmarks.
One thing that stayed consistent from my first post is my love for Levin. Seriously, he's now one my most favorite characters ever. I'm a little bit in love with him actually. As he reminds me of my husband I suppose this is good! I love how he works in the fields alongside his workers and respects them and doesn't have the typical aristocratic attitude.
I mentioned last time how he and Anna are foils of each other, which intensified in the second half. Both long for happiness and are searching to find it and think they find it at one point but then realize the were wrong, then both feel trapped but choose very different ways of handling that.
Some spoilers, although I think most people know about the "big" spoiler:
Anna feels trapped in her marriage and finds something she thinks will make her happy in Vronsky. You emphathize with her at this point because she didn't choose her first marriage and you can't help rooting for her to be happy, although the choice of abandoning her son is hard to understand. But leaving didn't make her happy, and having a second child made things worse. I think perhaps she had post-partum depression, understandable as she nearly died in childbirth and was most likely struggling with loving this child when she had abandoned her first. This led to her not bonding with the child. This continued and grew worse, and eventually she loses her mind. She becomes paranoid and feels there's no possibility of happiness for her except in death, leading to her suicide.
Levin, on the other hand, pursues his happiness in his land. He tries to find happiness with Kitty, but she rejects him and so he focuses entirely on his land and tries to believe he can be happy this way. Eventually he realizes he cannot be happy without Kitty and after learning of her change of heart they unite. But even then he still struggled - with fear, with uncertainty, with questions. He too considers suicide at one point, but instead chooses to believe in God and finds happiness that way.
I was surprised at how uplifting the book was in the end since I knew about Anna's suicide going in. I was surprised that it had hardly a ripple affect on the majority of the characters. I was surprised that so much of the book was about Levin. I was surprised that Anna Karenina is now on my top 10 list of favorite books.
Interesting quotes:
"It used to be that a freethinker was a man who had been brought up with notions of religion, law, morality, and had arrived at freethinking by himself, through his own toil and struggle. But now a new type of self=made freethinkers has appeared, who grow up and never even hear that there were laws of morality, religion, that there were authorities, but who grow up right into notions of the negation of everything - that, as wild men."
That rings true to today as well.
"And it occurred to her how incorrect the saying was about a curse being laid upon woman, that in pain she would bring forth children. 'Never mind giving birth, but being pregnant - that's the pain." This passage goes on to have a woman talking about how she was freed when her child died. She was free from the work, the worry, the bondage. Darya is horrified at this, but then thinks about the horrors of pregnancy, childbirth, nursing, sleepless nights, pain, cracked nipples, illnesses. I was surprised to see this addressed this long ago.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Anna Karenina - Part 1
Welcome to today's stop on the Classics Circuit Imperial Russian Literature tour, where I'll be reviewingAnna Karenina. Make sure to check out all of the other stops on the tour as well. I want to apologize for getting this post up late today instead of this morning. I'm trying to adjust to my new job and I haven't quite adjusted my schedule right yet. I also want to apologize for this being part 1 of a review instead of a whole review. I am only halfway through with Anna Karenina. I totally overestimated what I could get done in my time between jobs and trying to deal with all the things associated with a job change. I really just should have started it earlier though. But, it's such a big, dense book that doing two posts is probably a good idea anyway.
Despite my slowness in reading it, I'm loving Anna Karenina. And it's actually not as difficult a read as I expected. It's an interesting story with great characters. It really is a dense book though - lots of stuff going on, pages overflowing with characters, an abundance of details. And it's all meaningful. It's not a book you can read while mentally checking out. You really have to concentrate, which is something I've been lacking lately!
So, why is it worth the read? What they say is true - the Russians truly are the masters of the novel. In Anna Karenina, there are so many characters with overlapping stories that serve as a foil or foreshadowing of other characters and relationships. What surprised me so far is that despite the title and what I've heard back the book, Levin is the character I focus on the most and who seems the most alive. I'm a little bit in love with him actually. He's got his faults and certainly isn't some sort of Prince Charming/Mr. Perfect, but he's intelligent, rational, intense, insightful, and wise. I look forward to getting back to him each time the narration goes elsewhere. I'm rooting for him to live happily ever after. Hopefully his ending is a foil to Anna's!
I've also been surprised at how much I empathize with Anna. Going in, I knew she would cheat on her husband, and I expected to dislike her. I also expected that to happen much later in the book, but it happens right up front. Which makes it more interesting that I'm able to empathize with her. Tolstoy somehow makes you grasp the essence of his characters right from the start. With Anna, you instantly know she's not a bad person. You know her home life isn't happy, that she didn't chose to marry Karenin. That she deserves happiness and isn't going to get it. There is so much foreshadowing through the novel, which is another reason why the book is so dense. Every word could have an impact on later events, every action leads to reactions that resonate through the rest of the novel.
It's hard to describe the way Tolstoy crafts his novels. I feel like when I try to explain why I like them I can't come close to conveying what I mean. Clearly I'm not the wordsmith Tolstoy is. I know his books are intimidating, but I really do recommend giving them a try. Check out the Classics Circuit for other Imperial Russian writers and check back here for part two, hopefully soon!
Friday, July 2, 2010
Lady Susan, The Watsons, and Sanditon
It's both quite sad and satisfying that I've now read all of Jane Austen's fiction. I've out on reading Lady Susan, The Watsons, and Sanditon for years. The last time I read a new-to-me Austen novel was seven years ago, during my junior year of college when I read Persuasion. I had actually been holding out on reading that one because I thought that would finish her off, but was assigned it in one of my English classes. So I was quite happy to learn about these other three works. Lady Susan is a complete short novel Austen wrote early in life. The Watsons and Sanditon are two fragments of unfinished novels. Together, they represent three phases of her writing styles.
Lady Susan is an epistolary novel, a novel written in letters. That form was quite popular in the eighteenth century, especially with writers such as Fanny Burney and Samuel Richardson, both of whose works Austen enjoyed. Austen's first drafts of Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility were also written in this format, but she revised them later on. Which was definitely a good thing. Although Lady Susan is quite enjoyable, it's not up to Austen's normal abilities. Which is completely understandable since it's an early work, and also because the epistolary novel doesn't stand the test of time as well. Although I personally really enjoyed Evelina by Fanny Burney and Pamela by Richardson, they clearly pale in comparison with Austen's other works. They are highly melodramatic and you have to suspend you disbelief at some of the stretches the author's take to make the form work. I remember writing a paper in the same college class where I read Persuasion about Evelina and Pamela and the epistolary novel's by nature unreliable narrators. You have to think, would a young girl really write that much about a guy she likes to her guardian, a reverend? Is Pamela proclaiming her innocence just because she's writing to parents? But in Lady Susan, Austen keeps the melodrama to a minimum and has the characters write more logically, but this ruins some of the fun of that medium. You also don't get as well-rounded characters, and since Austen has such wonderfully developed characters in her other works you feel like something's missing.
I'm not saying all of that to say I didn't enjoy Lady Susan. I did. Lady Susan is a great villainess, and again is a surprising turn for Austen, but in a good way. She's selfish, mistreats her daughter, flirts constantly, pursues married men, and just generally causes chaos. It's quite fun to read about her and the other characters responses to her. But the story is only about 100 pages, so there's not a lot to dig in to.
In The Watsons, you get more of your typical Austen fare. It's very similar in style and tone to her other novels. I couldn't read about Emma Watson without picturing Emma Watson, otherwise known as Hermione Granger from the Harry Potter movies, playing her. Emma was raised away from her family in the hopes of being an heiress, but that doesn't work out and she comes back home to her family, where some of her sisters are battling to get married so as not to become poor spinsters. Emma attends a ball and we're introduced to several young men who may vie for her hand. For just being a fragment, I really enjoyed this piece and wish it had been developed into a finished piece. In the introduction to my edition, they discuss reasons for this and don't land clearly on anything, but do comment on the fact that the similarities to both Emma and Pride and Prejudice may have caused her to stop writing it. Also, it's the only work dating from her time in Bath, and maybe she just didn't have the motivation to finish while there (she seems to have hated Bath and may not have had the creative power to concentrate there), and then she just didn't want to pick it back up years later after going to Chawton. One of the other interesting bits in the intro was a comparison of this fragment to Cranford. Having just finished Cranford, I thought that was interesting and can see that aspect of a small tight-knit community in both and that the overall tone is fairly similar.
Finally, we have Sanditon. Sanditon is the last piece she was working on before she died. Here you can see the progression from her early novels to the later novels such as Persuasion to something else. There's something darker in this fragment than her other novels, much like Persuasion has a different feel to it. But here there's a feeling that everything may not turn out alright. Mr. Parker is trying to turn Sanditon into the place to be, like Bath. There's a feeling that this might not work out so well hanging over the work. There's also a trio of hypochondriacs in the novel, who Charlotte, the main character, can't stand. Austen's own mother was a apparently a bit of a hypochondriac, and since Austen was most likely dealing her while trying to deal with her own very real illness, she chose to get her feelings out on paper.
Another interesting part of Sanditon is the introduction of a sickly, wealthy mulatto girl, Miss Lambe. I was quite surprised by her appearance, and that she is the richest of a group of students who come to visit Sanditon. I think that's a clue that something quite different was going to happen in this novel had Austen been able to finish it. The introduction says that Miss Lambe could have stepped right out of a Charlotte Bronte novel. So, it's interesting to read Austen's progression from mimicking the eighteenth-century styles, to developing her own, to then trying to build on that and keep pushing her limits and try for something that become more popular later in the century, long after her death. One can only imagine what works she could have pleased us with if she hadn't passed away so young.
If you haven't read these works because they aren't polished and two of them aren't even complete, I recommend that if you like Austen to go ahead and give them a try. It's worth it just for a little bit more Austen and to see her growth as an author through the three pieces.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Cranford Part Two
It's time for part two of the Cranford read-a-hosted by Allie at A Literary Odyssey. I loved this book! I think this is a great book to start with if you're not sure if you like reading classics in general or the Victorians specifically. It really was easy to read and entertaining.
I found it interesting to blog about this in two posts. In doing so, I realized the first half of the book was mostly funny, with lots of events to make you like the characters and laugh out loud. The second half focused on Miss Matty losing most of her money from a bad investment in a bank that goes under. It focuses on how the people of Cranford band together to help Miss Matty, even though many of them don't have much either. It was very sweet and touching. I also thought the solutions to her money problems were interesting, since most Victorian books that handle that issue focus on the young woman, and how she must marry or become a governess. That's about it. I like how she becomes a little entrepreneur for a while, even though it's not very genteel.
Overall, I felt that Cranford was really about community. All of these different people come together. I wonder if Gaskell was worried about losing that feeling of community as people began flocking to cities during the Industrial Revolution. It also made me thankful for the community my Grandma has in her neighborhood, which I compared to Cranford in my first post. They all keep an eye on each other and help each other out, and I know if something happened to her they would take care of her until my family got there. It's interesting though that at the same time, I have zero desire to get to know my neighbors and if it wasn't for the expense and yard work, I'd prefer to live where I don't have neighbors too close. I still enjoy reading about tight-knit communities though, and I am grateful to live in a city where I know we band together when it counts, such as after the Murrah Building bombing and the May 3, 1999 tornado. Just as the women in Cranford are happy to live there, I'm happy to be an Okie!
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Cranford Part One
It's time for part one of the Cranford read-a-hosted by Allie at A Literary Odyssey. I've heard lots of things about Cranford and Elizabeth Gaskell's other works, but have never actually read anything by her. Ryan took one look at the cover of my copy and said, "What is that? Why are you reading something so boring?" I said, "It's Judi Dench! DAME Judi Dench! It's clearly going to be awesome." But I have to admit, I was a little nervous. A book about bunch of old ladies in a little bitty town gossiping? I'm wasn't sure how exciting this book would be.
The good news is that I love it! It's hilarious. The narrator cracks me up, as do all the ladies. They're quite entertaining. And Gaskell's writing style feels modern, more like you're reading a historical fiction novel than an actual novel from history if you know what I mean. The one time she used a term I wasn't familiar with, she defined it! It certainly wasn't what I was expecting from a Victorian novel, especially since she worked for Dickens and praises him in the opening chapter. That's actually a pretty funny scene, with two characters duking it out over Dickens vs. Samuel Johnson.
The book also starts out with an image of a cow dressed in grey flannel. It was trapped and removed most of it's hair and couldn't keep warm, so they dressed it in grey flannel. I keep picturing that and cracking up. My parents went a little crazy a few years ago and bought some land and some animals and have a few cows, so I keep thinking about driving up to their house and seeing a cow just standing there eating grass, wearing her flannel. And trying to imagine getting the cow to get into the flannel? Pretty funny.
I also liked it when the book talked about the ladies' views on eating oranges. They love them, but don't feel like they should eat them in front of others because the best way to eat them is basically just to suck on them, which is horribly messy and unladylike. I do the same thing! And I hate eating them for that reason. It was interesting to think about people thinking the same thing back in the 1840s.
Finally, I'm getting an extra kick out of this book because my Grandma totally lives in Cranford. She may live in a suburban neighborhood and not a tiny English village, but it's totally like Cranford. There's a bunch of older ladies (and a few men) who sit around and gossip and are all up in each other's business and know everything about what's going on. My Grandma had to get a new roof recently, and all the neighbors kept coming and spying on the workers and letting them know they were watching, like some sort of septuagenarian mafia. And my Grandma's a little bit particular, just like Miss Jenkyns, although not nearly so uptight! So, the book makes me think of her and that makes it a little bit more fun. If you're participating in the read-a-long, I hope you're enjoying it as much as I am!
Monday, April 26, 2010
The Three Musketeers
It's time to welcome The Classics Circuit back to my blog! This time we have Alexandre Dumas joining us. The first thing I have to say about The Three Musketeers is that it was actually a really easy read. The language wasn't difficult and there's a lot of action. But although I definitely enjoyed it and didn't get bored, I found myself reading really, really slowly. I'm not sure why that was. I think part of it might be that there was so much going on, and so many characters, that I read very carefully and that slowed me down. Not that I don't normally read carefully, but there's usually not that much to keep track off, and I had to keep making sure I kept Athos, Porthos, and Aramis straight. I adored D'Artagnon though (Although it kept making me think of this guy I went to high school with who was named after him - D'Artagnon Everett Dean Burns. It goes from French to hick real fast when you say that with a southern accent!)
I really enjoyed the adventures though, and I was surprised at some of the killings and stabbings that the musketeers and D'Artagnon jumped at every chance to start. There was also a reference to lesbians that surprised me!
I loved Don Quixote, and I was kind of hoping that The Three Musketeers would be somewhat similar, although with a stronger hero of course. So I thought it was awesome that Dumas refers to Don Quixote on the first page! I think that set me up to really enjoy the book, and take it for the fun, frothy, adventurous story that it is. I think that more English teachers should use this book, although it is really long. But I think it would interest more boys in reading since it's so clearly a boy book, while still be entertaining to the girls. It's also an accessible classic, although a post Jenny made over at Shelf Love made me wonder about that.
Jenny wrote a post about translations, and whether translators should modernize the language or stick closely to the original and what liberties they can take with the overall style. I've thought about translations before when reading Greek or Russian literature, but her post made me realize I've never once thought about that with French works! I think I just assumed that they wrote in English! I have no idea why I had never thought of that before, especially because I love Voltaire and I just read Zola and was reading Dumas. So I picked up my Oxford World's Classics edition of The Three Musketeers, and noticed that the translator is barely acknowledged. With the Greeks, it's usually plastered all over the place, probably because the translator also wrote the intro. But here it was buried in the last part of the introduction. William Barrow translated it in 1846, so I'm impressed the language was still very easy to read, although I do read a lot of Dickens who wrote at the same time so maybe I'm biased on that. According to Wikipedia, Barrow is pretty faithful to the original, except he toned down the sexuality to conform with Victorian standards. I'm surprised that lesbian reference still worked it's way in! But apparently the D'Artagnon and Milady scenes were a bit steamier in the original French. Although the Barrows translation was the standard for years, now a version by Richard Pevear in 2006 is considered standard, and he believes that the Barrows edition is an example of bad translation screwing up the author's work. So, if you'd like the steamier, more recent edition, check out the Pevear one. Maybe someday I'll read it to and see which was better. Anyway, thank you to Jenny for making me think more about translations!
Saturday, April 10, 2010
The Ladies' Paradise
Whether you're visiting my blog for the 24-hour readathon or from the Classics Circuit, or just because you like me, welcome!
The current tour on the Classics Circuit is for Emile Zola. I've owned The Ladies' Paradise for a while, and had started reading it about a year ago. I was only about 15 pages in when I realized it was part of a series, so I put it aside to get the earlier books in the series and read them first. Then I learned that some of the series is only available in French. Oops. So, when Zola came up on the Circuit, I decided to dust off The Ladies' Paradise and dive in.
Overall, The Ladies' Paradise doesn't feel like a novel. The main character is really the store, The Ladies' Paradise, and it's more about business, marketing, and consumerism than about the actual characters and plot. Normally that would drive me crazy, but it didn't here. It's definitely not going to make my list of favorite books, but I still enjoyed it. It surprised me that this was written in 1883. The business world descriptions were oddly accurate for today as well.
It's a revolutionary time for business. Stores have started placing pricing signs in the windows, increasing competition. Large stories like The Ladies' Paradise now have departments selling different items instead of each store only selling one type of item. Before then, there were umbrella stores, dress stores, silk stores, etc. Now, one giant store could sell all of these items, and grow to have over 3,000 salespeople and make a million francs in one day. (See my entry in the book score/soundtrack mini-challenge for the readathon for a comparison between this and Empire Records.)
The story is about Mouret, the owner of The Ladies' Paradise. He sees the opportunity to exploit women and market to them to make tons of money in his story. There is one girl, Denise, who becomes a salesperson in his shop that refuses to give into the consumerism and be bought by him, and he falls in love with her. And her transformation from a frail girl unable to stand up for herself to someone who can control the shots was interesting, but the story is less about Mouret and Denise than consumerism itself.
I don't know if it's just because I'm in marketing myself that I paid more attention to that aspect of the novel, or if it was just really prevalent anyway, but that's what I focused on. The focus on women is definitely there though: "Of supreme importance...was the exploitation of Woman...it was Woman they were continually snaring with their bargains...They had awoken new desires in her weak flesh." And on, and on. It doesn't paint a very flattering picture of women. It portrays them as easy to tempt by saying something is on sale, by filling the store with baubles and shiny things, by saying it's the latest fashion, by having sales reps there to greet and sell to each customer individually. The whole thing is extremely insulting, but at the same time it's rather true. Even when I worked in the men's department in J.C. Penney's in high school, it was the women who bought 90% of the stuff. And sometimes something like Dockers would be on sale for like $2 off, but the sale sign convinced them all they were getting a great bargain. And how many women do you know that have to buy the latest fashions just because it's the trend, and heaven forbid they aren't trendy?
I think I found this book fascinating because in high school I was someone who focused on fashion, and even though I didn't like being trendy exactly, I was still obsessed with clothes and shopping. Now you have to practically drag me to a mall, and if someone told me I was trendy I might just punch them in the face. I think focusing on being trendy just makes you look unintelligent (although going to far in the other direction can be just as bad). It looks like you don't know who you are and are just doing what you think you're supposed to be doing, demonstrating low self-esteem. What's interesting to me is that this seems to now be a plague among the boys in America and not just the girls. Last night I went to the mall with my husband for the first time in about 18 months. What is wrong with teenage boys these days? They look like idiots, and the look girly! They all have skinny pants and pink and purple tops, which I noticed is what was also on all the mannequins. And their hair, ugh. I don't mind long hair, my dad actually usually has long hair, but what's with the weird long in front, elf-like haircuts? I'm really glad I'm not a teenager these days. I would not be dating.
Sorry for the tangent. One more thing I thought was interesting. Mouret arranges his story so that you have to walk across the most floor space as possible to reach departments that you might shop together. For instance, ladies shoes and dresses may be a mile apart, with accessories in between to tempt you along the way. That way you aren't like to just walk in and make your purchase and leave. He also rearranges the store to keep people confused. I think Dillard's is on to that strategy. My mom and grandma always talk about how they have a different layout every time they go. Maybe that's why. Interesting. It also talked about marketing to the children, having tempting items for them that the parents can't say no too. We tend to talk about this being a recent issue, so I thought that was fascinating that Zola wrote about that over 100 years ago.
Well, I'm off to get back to reading for the readathon!
The current tour on the Classics Circuit is for Emile Zola. I've owned The Ladies' Paradise for a while, and had started reading it about a year ago. I was only about 15 pages in when I realized it was part of a series, so I put it aside to get the earlier books in the series and read them first. Then I learned that some of the series is only available in French. Oops. So, when Zola came up on the Circuit, I decided to dust off The Ladies' Paradise and dive in.
Overall, The Ladies' Paradise doesn't feel like a novel. The main character is really the store, The Ladies' Paradise, and it's more about business, marketing, and consumerism than about the actual characters and plot. Normally that would drive me crazy, but it didn't here. It's definitely not going to make my list of favorite books, but I still enjoyed it. It surprised me that this was written in 1883. The business world descriptions were oddly accurate for today as well.
It's a revolutionary time for business. Stores have started placing pricing signs in the windows, increasing competition. Large stories like The Ladies' Paradise now have departments selling different items instead of each store only selling one type of item. Before then, there were umbrella stores, dress stores, silk stores, etc. Now, one giant store could sell all of these items, and grow to have over 3,000 salespeople and make a million francs in one day. (See my entry in the book score/soundtrack mini-challenge for the readathon for a comparison between this and Empire Records.)
The story is about Mouret, the owner of The Ladies' Paradise. He sees the opportunity to exploit women and market to them to make tons of money in his story. There is one girl, Denise, who becomes a salesperson in his shop that refuses to give into the consumerism and be bought by him, and he falls in love with her. And her transformation from a frail girl unable to stand up for herself to someone who can control the shots was interesting, but the story is less about Mouret and Denise than consumerism itself.
I don't know if it's just because I'm in marketing myself that I paid more attention to that aspect of the novel, or if it was just really prevalent anyway, but that's what I focused on. The focus on women is definitely there though: "Of supreme importance...was the exploitation of Woman...it was Woman they were continually snaring with their bargains...They had awoken new desires in her weak flesh." And on, and on. It doesn't paint a very flattering picture of women. It portrays them as easy to tempt by saying something is on sale, by filling the store with baubles and shiny things, by saying it's the latest fashion, by having sales reps there to greet and sell to each customer individually. The whole thing is extremely insulting, but at the same time it's rather true. Even when I worked in the men's department in J.C. Penney's in high school, it was the women who bought 90% of the stuff. And sometimes something like Dockers would be on sale for like $2 off, but the sale sign convinced them all they were getting a great bargain. And how many women do you know that have to buy the latest fashions just because it's the trend, and heaven forbid they aren't trendy?
I think I found this book fascinating because in high school I was someone who focused on fashion, and even though I didn't like being trendy exactly, I was still obsessed with clothes and shopping. Now you have to practically drag me to a mall, and if someone told me I was trendy I might just punch them in the face. I think focusing on being trendy just makes you look unintelligent (although going to far in the other direction can be just as bad). It looks like you don't know who you are and are just doing what you think you're supposed to be doing, demonstrating low self-esteem. What's interesting to me is that this seems to now be a plague among the boys in America and not just the girls. Last night I went to the mall with my husband for the first time in about 18 months. What is wrong with teenage boys these days? They look like idiots, and the look girly! They all have skinny pants and pink and purple tops, which I noticed is what was also on all the mannequins. And their hair, ugh. I don't mind long hair, my dad actually usually has long hair, but what's with the weird long in front, elf-like haircuts? I'm really glad I'm not a teenager these days. I would not be dating.
Sorry for the tangent. One more thing I thought was interesting. Mouret arranges his story so that you have to walk across the most floor space as possible to reach departments that you might shop together. For instance, ladies shoes and dresses may be a mile apart, with accessories in between to tempt you along the way. That way you aren't like to just walk in and make your purchase and leave. He also rearranges the store to keep people confused. I think Dillard's is on to that strategy. My mom and grandma always talk about how they have a different layout every time they go. Maybe that's why. Interesting. It also talked about marketing to the children, having tempting items for them that the parents can't say no too. We tend to talk about this being a recent issue, so I thought that was fascinating that Zola wrote about that over 100 years ago.
Well, I'm off to get back to reading for the readathon!
Herland
I finished book number two for the readathon - Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. I had heard about this book in college when we read The Yellow Wallpaper in a class, but hadn't read it. A few months ago Rebecca at Rebecca Readshad a giveaway, and I won a copy. Thanks Rebecca!
Herland is about a land where only women live. They can reproduce asexually, and haven't had men in their society for 2,000 years. For the story, three men discover this land and assume that is must be awful because women can't run anything, that there must actually be men somewhere, and that they'll have a grand old time with that many women to conquer. She wrote the book in 1915, so that was still the belief of most of the world.
Of course, the women's world is portrayed as a utopian society where all is peaceful and wonderful. What surprised me was that their society so celebrated motherhood above all else, and that seemed to be their reason for living. I found it odd that Perkins Gilman visualized even this utopian society that way since she did not seem to enjoy motherhood herself. After she and her husband separated and he remarried, she willingly sent her daughter to them. So this worshipping of motherhood just seemed really odd.
I think that aspect is part of what prevented me from really enjoying the book. As someone who does not want to have children, I hate things that focus on how the point of everything is to have kids. I didn't expect to love this book since I personally don't think an all-woman society would be a pleasant thing. I have to agree with a bit of the men in the book's preconception of the society, that the women would fight all the time. Maybe if men weren't in the picture women wouldn't tend to be so jealous of each other and so mean, but I don't know. I mean, when I was dating this one guy in high school, I had several different girls threaten me if I didn't break up with him. Again, maybe that wouldn't happen without men around, but it just seems like there would still be something to fight about. And I prefer anti-utopian novels to utopian ones. They seem much more realistic. I guess I'm a pessimist.
I am glad I read this book though, I did think it was interesting and it does you make think, and it does make me appreciative of the fact that I can have a great career, could easily support myself if I wasn't married, and can choose not to have kids if I don't want to.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
A Christmas Carol
It's time for my annual rereading of Dickens' A Christmas Carol. One of the things that stood out to me this year was how he mentions other books such as Hamlet and Robinson Crusoe. It's fun to me that I've read some of the same stuff Dickens did, even though he lived a long time before me.
I'm jealous that people in Dickens' time actually got to hear him read A Christmas Carol. He'd do performances every Christmas. I knew this, but since I recently read The Last Dickens and watched a Doctor Who episode that featured him doing that, it just struck me that those people got to watch him do that. How cool would that have been? And it's amazing to me that 166 years later there's yet another movie made based on it. I wonder what it would have been like to read it that first year, before you knew anything about it. Now, we're usually very familiar with the story before we ever read it, if we ever read it. We all watch Mickey's A Christmas Carol and know the story from that. (I'm not knocking Mickey, I love that version!) But then when we read it, it's not as surprising as it must have been back then. I checked out a book from the library called The Man Who Invented Christmas, which is about Dickens, so I'm interested in what it has to say about that. Look for that review soon.
Also, I'm jealous that Dickens wrote this when he was just 31. That makes me feel like I really need to get on the ball with some sort of lasting accomplishment. I need to write a masterpiece in the next three years!
I usually try to post a picture of the copy of the exact book I have, but I couldn't find one for the one I have (not that I looked too hard though). It's from 1984 and is a signet classic, and they've updated covers since then and there are a billion different versions of the book out there, plus all movie stuff comes up even when you put "book" in your search. Oh well.
Friday, December 4, 2009
The Woman in White
I've been meaning to read The Woman in White for a while now, and finally got around to it due to the Wilkie Collins mini-challenge. I also happened to read it near it's 150-year anniversary, which is rather fun. The Guardian ran a great article on it and how successful it was in it's time, rivaling his friend Dickens. Wouldn't it have been great to live in Victorian England and get to read these stories as they came out, eagerly waiting in anticipation for the next installment? Well, I suppose I wouldn't want to give up all the comforts of modern life, so maybe that doesn't sound so great. On a side note, when I was in the middle of this I started watching the new version of Doctor Who and watched the episode featuring Charles Dickens, which was quite fun. Great show. Anyway, the point is to write about The Woman in White. I loved this book, but for some reason it took me longer than usual to read it. It might just be that I've been reading a lot of contemporary books the last few months and had to adjust to the massive use of adjectives in Victorian books, but I think it also had to do with the narrators. I think this is the oldest book I've read that used multiple narrators to tell the story in this type of format. I could definitely be wrong about that though. Collins switches from narrator to narrator as they enter and leave the story centering around the mystery of the woman in white. He did a good job of capturing the voices of the different characters, but the problem was that some of them annoyed me and I think that caused me to read slower in their parts.
As I mentioned, the story centers around the woman in white, making it one of the first mystery novels. It has a great story, but it sort of peters out at the end. I'm not sure if he had word count incentives/requirements like Dickens (often had length requirements for his serialized segments) and had to round out the end or what, but I found myself almost skimming the last few pages. Overall though, I really enjoyed and felt like it holds up well and it very readable for a modern audience. I would especially recommend it if you like mysteries or novels that use multiple points of view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)