Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

Rating

* * * * *

The book's synopsis from the publisher's website:

‘Now that I had finished, the beauty of my dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart …’

Obsessed by creating life itself, Victor Frankenstein plunders graveyards for the material to fashion a new being, which he shocks into life by electricity. But his botched creature, rejected by Frankenstein and denied human companionship, sets out to destroy his maker and all that he holds dear. 

Mary Shelley’s chilling gothic tale was conceived when she was only eighteen, living with her lover Percy Shelley near Byron’s villa on Lake Geneva. Frankenstein would become the world’s most famous work of horror fiction, and remains a devastating exploration of the limits of human creativity.

Many thoughts float through my mind now that I'm finished with this gem. These thoughts seem to be in disagreement with the majority of other readers (fans or not) of Frankenstein. But maybe this tale is a classic precisely because it means so many different things to so many readers. I don't usually use 'timeless' in relation to any pieces of literature, or at least not lightly. But Mary wrote a timeless story if ever there was one. Here's why:

People are assholes and I'm part of 'people', and Frankenstein is a mirror of truth that shows humanity's real reflection and if there have ever been monsters populating this world, it's always been people that are the most dangerous, the most destructive and the cruelest. Maybe Prometheus is not supposed to be praised for saving humanity (there are multiple versions of that myth so, who knows?) but was in the wrong and Zeus was correct in wanting to let humanity perish? Whatever your conclusions may be, one thing is certain: the story of Victor's creation is heartbreaking and I indeed shed tears of sorrow. That being was a beautiful one. He was someone instinctively prepared to be good, do good and see good in others. Whatever evil he did was grounded in what he learned from humans, starting and ending with an all-consuming selfishness and obsession with revenge he learned from his creator, Victor Frankenstein.

What I'm mainly in disagreement with other readers (and lit. critics) is that I don't see any direct link between Mary Shelley's story and religion, God and the dangers of trying to play god in science, and hence going too far. I think if there is anything we're getting warned against, it's the dangers of our passions that can turn into obsession and  push us over the edge where no morality, no good or evil any longer exist but only our singular drive to achieve what we obsess over. It blinds us to everything and everyone. Victor tries to give that warning to the young man to whom he tells his story. As a matter of fact, it's actually one of the first things he says. He even mentions how, if we took our time and not let the sick obsession take over our beings, America would have been discovered much later but without the tragedy and bloodshed the actual discovery otherwise left in its wake*.

I also think that Mary Shelley was in fact a very talented and deliberate writer even then, even at nineteen. I know that many criticize her for the lack of polish and certain amateurishness in her writing. And I'm sure those people know what they're talking about, some of them are my reading friends who I'm 100% certain know what they're saying. But here's my thought: choosing to let Victor tell his own story, she made his account reflect his hideous personality with an accuracy that wouldn't have been present if told in the third person by Captain Walton to whom the story was told. Third person narration would have been too impersonal to have the same impact or too tainted by the potential narrator who was clearly enthralled by Victor. Hence, Victor is despicable because Mary wanted us, the readers, to perceive him as precisely such. Criticism, therefore, of the whole book based on a reader hating Victor is unfounded and should, I think, be re-considered.

**Minor Spoiler**

Victor is in thralls of the very obsession he's moralizing against to the very end, when on his deathbed he is willing to tie the young captain and the lives of everyone on the ship to the promise of chasing after Victor's monster until he is killed. So yeah, Victor is quite a little hypocrite too.

Last but least, the fact that Captain Walton, who also tells his own side of the story in letters (again, a lot more personal and with more impact) is feeling grief over Victor but not over the fate of Frankenstein's creature, that he sees nothing bad in and feels no anger over Victor's conduct/self-pity/self-glamorization is very telling as well. That right there seems to me to be Mary's commentary on the whole of humanity, on our bigotry, hypocrisy and inability to see and cultivate true beauty and innocence.

Frankenstein is really a beautiful and very sad story. It's worth everyone's time. The one thing I don't think it is, is a horror story. It's not at all scary. As I mentioned above, I actually cried over the tragedy of Frankenstein's creature. His despair, helplessness and hopelessness are truly moving. Not a story I will soon forget, if ever.

~~~~~~~

FTC: I purchased a copy of Frankenstein by Mary Shelley.

* It's not a direct quote, just my mixture of paraphrasing and interpreting of what Victor said.

Three Men in a Boat by Jerome K. Jerome

Rating

* * * *
The book's description from the publisher's website:

Martyrs to hypochondria and general seediness, J. and his friends George and Harris decide that a jaunt up the Thames would suit them to a T'. But when they set off, they can hardly predict the troubles that lie ahead with tow-ropes, unreliable weather-forecasts and tins of pineapple chunks not to mention the devastation left in the wake of J.'s small fox-terrier Montmorency.  

Three Men in a Boat was an instant success when it appeared in 1889, and, with its benign escapism, authorial discursions and wonderful evocation of the late-Victorian clerking classes', it hilariously captured the spirit of its age.

I forgot just how funny Three Men in a Boat was (I had read it once before but remembered nothing). It's a kind of a travelogue, with three friends rowing down the Thames but really, it contains historical commentary that's clever and hilarious (the courting of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn) and anecdotes from the lives of all three men (and some from the dog, Momntmorency).

Three Men in a Boat is a staple of wit, cleverness and sarcastic humor. That's more or less widely known. But Jerome K. Jerome wrote a classic that holds quite a few surprises. Besides it being a book filled with hilarity, Three Men in a Boat is a tale that contains surprising insight into the nature of man and the insight's timelessness. Many a comment applies to the society of the 21st century just as much as it did to the 19th century, when the book was written, and it will apply to societies centuries to come.

How they [people] pile the poor little craft mast-high with fine clothes and big houses; with useless servants, and a host of swell friends that do not care twopence for them, and that they do not care three ha'pence for; with expensive entertainment that nobody enjoys. with formalities and fashions, with pretence and ostentation, and with - oh, heaviest, maddest lumber of all! - the dread of what will my neighbour think, with luxuries that only cloy, with pleasures that bore (...) It is lumber, man - all lumber! Throw it overboard. It makes the boat so heavy to pull, you nearly faint at the oars." (p.29-30)

Another surprising thing was how beautifully Mr. Jerome could write. I was shocked a few times when after some comical adventure or two, the narrator would say some really wonderful bits. It was completely unexpected and made me appreciate the whole novel even more.

It [sailing] comes as near to flying as man has got to yet (...) The wings of the rushing wind seem to be bearing you onward, you know not where. You are no longer the slow, plodding, puny thing of clay, creeping tortuously upon the ground; you are a part of Nature! Your heart is throbbing against hers! her glorious arms are around you, raising you up against her heart! Your spirit is at one with hers; your limbs grow light (p.140)

There is one thing that I didn't appreciate so much. It's the subject of rowing, towing and sailing that described the technical side of it all. I simply didn't care for it and it made the story drag a little at places. But of course, there was always something funny or even profound (yes, profound) following that made reading the slightly boring parts worth it.

~~~~~~

FTC: I bought a copy of Three Men in a Boat.

Kristin Lavransdatter by Sigrid Undset, translated by Tiina Nunnally

The book's description written by (because it seems the most accurate and no simple synopsis will suffice) Brad Leithauser in the introduction to the edition translated by Tiina Nunnally:

Kristin Lavransdatter's dense, decade-spanning plot might be summarized as the story of a daddy's girl who refuses daddy's choice of husband and marries for love, with often harrowing long range consequences. Kristin's father wishes her to marry Simon Andresson, an honorable thoughtful, devoted, and woefully unglamorous man. Kristin falls instead for Erlend Nikulausson, a proud, impulsive, fearless young knight who seems constitutionally unable to steer clear of scandal (...)

When you enter Kristin Lavransdatter, you enter a marriage, a contract expansively unfolding through time. Disturbingly, fascinatingly, it's a union of two people who share a proud, combative stubbornnes that ultimately undoes them. (p.XI)

I have so many thoughts about this most wonderful of all epics that I don't know where to start and I am certain that no matter what I write, will it do Kristin Lavransdatter enough justice. I'll write what I can and you decide for yourself whether you want to enter or, should I say, let the world of 14th century Norway enter your life. Sigrid Undset cetainly wrote about the country and the time, and the people in a way that will never let me forget this diamond of a novel.

There really isn't much I can do about it but mostly it's feelings and emotions that come to my mind when thinking of this masterpiece. There's no need to bother my head with proper character development, exceptional historical detail, the flow of the plot, etc. It's all there, yes, all in proper condition as even the most demanding would seek, but that's not what you pay attention to when reading about Kristin, about wild Erlend, about noble, goodhearted Simon, about the beautiful Norway with traditions and culture long gone (although hopefully not forgotten). You, instead, focus on the life itself, its trials and tribulations, tragedies and sadness, intermingled with happiness, joy and miracles it brings.

Kristin Lavransdatter is the ultimate coming-of-age story following the young girl from the days of her sweet, innocent childhood all through the end of her life ravished with sorrows, misfortunes, but also blessed with many good things that were not given to others. Even Kristin herself ruminates later in her life on how she lost sight of all the good things she'd been granted in life, because she could only think about the next tragedy to come along as a result of her wantonness.

If you're looking for the novel of motherhood, look no more. If you want a romance, this is a story that aces all other romances. and finally, if it's historical fiction you're after, you'll find Kristin Lavransdatter to be the one all other HF novels will be judged upon.

Kristin Lavransdatter is the masterpiece of literature. It's sublime. Just the thought that I've already finished it tightens my throat and almost makes me cry (I kid you not). I miss it, I'm nostalgic and I want to go back to it.

A word on translation: Tiina Nunnally is fantastic and she did a beautiful job, showing the full extent of Sigrid Undset's writing genius. For more in depth information, I'm directing you to the article about Nunnally's translation of Kristin Lavransdatter on Norway, the Official Site in the United States.

P.S.
Try to look for it at library sales or other used book's sales sites. Chances are you won't find it. At least I couldn't. And I visit tons of sales. That's because most people who've read Kristin Lavransdatter, do not want to part with it. Ever.

FTC: I bought this book.

Lonesome Dove Readalong - Chapters 71-80

I am now officially one whole week and 10 chapters behind with the readalong. I am planning on catching up soon though. In the meantime, you can read Amy's, Leah's and Melissa's responses for the current discussion here.

The questions from past week were created by Leah.

1. Jake Spoon has fallen in with the Suggs' brothers, a band of murderers and horse thieves. They leave a trail of misery in their wake. What do you think of the final outcome? Were you surprised by the ending of Jake? Did you think Call and Gus would do it?

I was very surprised that Jake got hanged. But I expected Gus and Call to got through with it. Somehow, it didn't seem in character, if they changed their minds last minute. They are dangerous men and I'm only surprised that Jake decided to join the Suggs' gang knowing that they might encounter the Rangers. He was one of them after all at one point and he knew what his faith would be if caught.

2. We learn about Clara's life after Gus. Do you think she is happy with the life she has chosen?
Can I just say that Clara is so far my most favorite female character and one of the most favorite characters in the whole novel? It's true. She has spunk, she doesn't complain or whine and she's strong. I like women to be strong and be able to think for themselves, and be in charge of their lives, no matter how bad it might be. Clara is such a person. She makes the best of what she got dealt in life, instead of wallowing in sorrow and self-pity (God only knows, she has enough reasons to).

3. Elmira leaves her second born son with Clara shortly after giving birth to him, leaves July for a second time, and doesn't even bat an eye when she learns about the death of Joe. How do you feel about Elmira now?

I haven't changed my mind about her, since the beginning I thought she was a selfish, self-absorbed person. She still is and she will remain so until the end. I changed my mind about July though. I now think that he just stop pursuing Elmira because it's becoming embarrassing to watch him chase after her like that when she clearly doesn't want him. Have some pride, for goodness sake!

Look for the answers to the current discussion soon. In the meantime, if you're interested, you can read the girls' answers to questions provided by Melissa here.

Lonesome Dove Readalong - Chapters 51-60

This weeks questions are provided by Melissa from Gerbera Daisy Diaries and if you'd like to see her answers, as well as Amy's and Leah's, please visit My Friend Amy. You can also just head over directly to Melissa's and Leah's blogs.


1. Lorena’s situation is hell. How does she endure the suffering? (Or anyone who is put in a position of utter brutality). What are your overall feelings and thoughts about her, Blue Duck, Dog Face, Monkey John and the whole camp scene? Where does such evil come from?


I have no idea how she indeed managed to mentally survive this ordeal (although if she indeed survive it remains to be seen). I was obviously very shocked at the brutality and I honestly can't tell you where this evil comes from. I wonder about it daily when I hear about people committing awful crimes and I still have no clue. The worst for me is that I look at my infant son and realize that all there murderers and rapist were once such innocent babies. The question is, what went wrong? I know that Lonesome Dove is fiction but honestly, if it can be thought of, it has probably been done already.

2. The two story lines finally collide when Gus meets up with July and his gang – did you have any premonition it would end the way it did? Do you think July is reluctant to set out on his own to find Elmira?


This was the most shocking and unexpected part of the story so far. I had no idea that this was going to be the end of the road for Roscoe, Joe and Janey. Even after they were slaughtered, I found myself thinking, Did this just really happen?. I'm still digesting the events of that night. None of what happened have I even imagined would. As far as July goes, I really don't know what to think of him. he should just forget about Elmira and maybe join Gus and Lorena.

3. Call is obviously distraught that Gus hasn’t returned, do these emotions surprise you? Do they seem out of character for Call? Do you think he is more worried now that Po Campo has shed light on how bad Blue Duck is?

That's the one thing I'm not surprised about. I expected Call would be distraught. For a while there I thought call was the one showing up in time to rescue Gus not the July party. But like the girls said, Call and Gus still seem like an old marriage and Call does care about Gus more than he wants to admit, maybe even to himself.

Lonesome Dove Readalong - Chapters 41 -50

This weeks questions are provided by Leah from Amused By Books and if you'd like to see her answers, as well as Amy's and Melissa's, please visit My Friend Amy.

1. We now have the full story of two huge female relationships in our main men's lives: Cal and Maggie; and Gus and Clara. They are very different. What do these relationships tell us about the men they've become, if anything?

I think that mostly these failed relationships show what kind of life Gus and Call did lead as Texas Rangers and the sacrifices that went along with it. We are just getting a glimpse of it and I think more will be revealed about Gus and Call as Rangers, as well as about their relationships with Maggie and Clara. I believe Call did love Maggie but his problem is a basic fear of commitment. He didn't want to be tied down to one woman and give up the life he had as the captain of the Texas Rangers.As far as Clara goes, I think she knew Gus more than he knew himself and didn't marry him precisely because he may have been unhappy down the road as a settled down husband and would always want to go back to the 'lonesome' life of a Ranger.

2. Our old pal Roscoe gets a female traveling companion! Do you think he should have rescued her? Do you think they make a good pair?


To be honest, I have so far not put too much importance to the girl appearing at Roscoe's side. She is a little bit of a mystery and if anything, she will not end up with Roscoe but with July instead. I think July will find Roscoe (not the other way around, I think that's pretty clear that Roscoe is not very capable by now) there will develop a relationship between July and the girl.

3. The cowboys finally meet a Native American while traveling, the famous Blue Duck, who Cal and Gus even know from their Ranger days (and we saw how bad ass Gus and Cal used to be when they Rangered when they wandered into San Antonio for a bit). What do you make of everything that has happened with Blue Duck and Lorena and what do you think will happen when Gus and Blue Duck meet again?

I'm not gonna lie, I was shocked by the rape of Lorena's. I didn't think it would actually come to that. I guess that shows my ignorance and/or lack of knowledge in the western department. I did know that Blue Duck would come back for her, so that wasn't a surprise. I was actually very mad at her for being so stupidly stubborn and really so naive as to believe that Jake would come back on time to save her. I mean, didn't she have enough bad experience with men to know better?! I just hope that Gus will come out alive of it because I did sense some foreboding there and I hope I'm wrong.

Final thoughts: This part of the book really showed me why so many people love Lonesome Dove and why Larry McMurtry is the successful writer he is. The swift change from the atmosphere of fun, humor and comedy of western manners to the scene in San Antonio that showed how dangerous Gus and Call really could be and then to the kidnapping of Lorena and her subsequent rape proves to me a work of a very talented writer. Not many people can achieve such 'an emotional roller coaster' (if I may) in a novel successfully without confusing the reader.  This part really caused me to switch my attitude from mild entertainment to serious consideration of a classic.

Lonesome Dove Readalong - Chapters 31-40

Amy from My Friend Amy provided this week's questions. She is also loving the novel. I am not loving it yet, but I do like it more and more with each week and even if I do not fall head over heels for it at the end of the readalong, it will have been worth it.

As usual, you can read the answers to the questions that Leah and Melanie gave also on My Friend Amy's blog. Mine are below.

1 )Gus starts off this section, saying, "Here is where we all find out if we was meant to be cowboys." when Deets predicts a storm. Newt later observes that the only person who hadn't performed well in the storm was Sean. Did you predict at this point Sean would be the first casualty? How did his death impact you? What did you think of the way Gus and Call handled it?



I had no idea that Sean was going to die, especially so suddenly and such a cruel death. But after it happened, I started thinking that maybe the reason McMurtry introduced the brothers in the novel was so he could use one of them (who knows maybe Alan will be next) as the first casualty, someone the reader doesn't care about enough to be turned off by such a quick death. Sean seemed to me sort of a 'collateral damage' if you will.

2)Elmira and Loraine are both traveling on their own in the company of men. What do you think about the differences in their two situations? Which situation would you rather be in?


Unquestionably, I'd choose Lorena's situation. The people she is around know her, she feels comfortable around at least one of them, Gus and I honestly don't think they would hurt her. Elmira, on the other hand, has really gotten herself in quite a situation here. She now owes a debt to the guy who wants to marry her and killed another for Elmira's protection. I have no idea how she'll get out of it but there's some dangerous times awaiting her, in my opinion.

3)Roscoe is a bit pathetic out looking for July on his own when he runs across Louisa Brooks who proposes marriage in no time. What did you think of this unique character of Louisa and Roscoe's reaction to her? 

I think the whole thing is hilarious! Although I was a little bit worried there that Roscoe will stay with Louisa and my plans for him fitting right in with Gus and Call would come to naught. As of right now there's still some chance, lol! I do think that they would make a fun couple, though.

Some final thoughts: I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'm developing a dislike towards Jake. He's really kinda lazy, he whines a lot and comes across as a phony person altogether.

Lonesome Dove Readalong - Chapters 21 -30

This weeks questions are provided by Melissa from Gerbera Daisy Diaries and if you'd like to see her answers, as well as Amy's and Leah's, please visit My Friend Amy.

1) Xavier issues an impassioned plea to Lorena to stay in Lonesome Dove and marry him. Do you think his motives are sincere? Or is he doing it for business? Also, here is another chance for Lorena to bypass the cattle drive and go directly to San Francisco (which we are to believe is her goal), but yet she turns it down. Why?


I don't know what to think about this whole scene. It actually was very surprising and a little bit confusing that Xavier reacted so strongly to Lorena's leaving. I suppose his motives may have been sincere and he simply never really expected Lori to leave. That's probably why he waited until the last minute. His crying and begging were probably due to the overall shock at the whole situation. Let's face it, the cattle crew's lives are not the only ones changing. Once they all leave, Lonesome Dove will never be the same either and Xavier isn't very partial to change. I want to believe he did care for Lorena but never had to reveal his feelings since she was staying right under his roof and he believed that it would never change. As far as Lorena's decision goes, I think it's partly due to her not wanting to take any more chances with men promising her better future (she did get burned a couple of times there) and part her unwillingness to possibly spend the rest of her life with a man she wasn't physically attracted to (she is a young, beautiful woman and has a right to try and choose who she wants to be with).


2) We are shown Newt’s inexperience and youth when he asks, “how far is it, up north?” To which Captain Call responds, “it’s a ways farther than you’ve been.” But the reader is privy to Call’s internal thoughts that reflect more directly on Gus:

It struck Call that they should have educated the boy a little better. He seemed to think north was a place, not just a direction. It was another of Gus’s failings – he considered himself a great educator, but yet he rarely told anyone anything they needed to know.

What do you think about Call’s assessment of Gus? Any thoughts?


I don't really have many thoughts on this one. Both Gus and Call are sort of enigmas to me still and I don't know what to think of either of them, although it seems as if they are perceived by others, specifically residents of Fort Smith, as some king of legendary and dangerous Rangers. I guess Call feels disappointed with Gus a little and maybe a little tired of him as well. This journey to Montana is a big undertaking and call may just be feeling stressed and frustrated.


3) We finally see the flip side of Jake’s story– Ft. Smith, Arkansas – what do you think of July? Roscoe? Elmira? Peach?

First of all, I think this part of the book was actually pretty funny, especially the scene were Peach wrings the rooster's neck while telling July to go and look for Jake. I guess, if nothing else, this was the convincing factor for July. I didn't warm up much to Elmira. I think she's selfish, despite what had happened to her before she married July. It still didn't give her the right to deceive and use him the way she did and then abandon her own son in search for her own adventure. Personally, I like Roscoe the most, I think he will catch up with the crew and fit right in with Gus and Call, Gus especially.

Lonesome Dove Readalong - Chapters 11 -20

This weeks questions are provided by Leah from Amused By Books and if you'd like to see her answers, as well as Amy's and Melissa's, please visit My Friend Amy.

1) Obviously Texas and Mexico border each other and we've learned that Call and Gus used to be Rangers. Their job was to control the borders. Any Mexican caught stealing horses or cattle on the Texas side was hung or shot, yet they are going down to Mexico to gather their horses and cattle for the drive to Mexico. Newt observes this juxtaposition and so do we? Thoughts?


I didn't really think much of it, other than the obvious observation on a double standard of their morals, although I'm not sure it even goes that deep. This book being my first venture into the world of 'wild, wild West', I think that maybe this is just how life operated then. Mexicans stole from Texans and vice versa, Mexicans got hanged for it if caught and vice versa. I believe it was Jake who noticed that death would likely be his fate if he escaped to Mexico. The only thought of mine worth mentioning is maybe on Newt himself. Because he's the only one who did notice that what they were doing was punishable by death if done by a Mexican, it speaks volumes on his youth and innocence and how he views the world around him. I hope that good things await this boy.

2. Call has to go gather men to work on his cattle drive. We get a glimpse into home life in Texas. Some families are eager to give up their eldest sons to have less mouths to feed and some are doing much better. What did you think of these glimpses?


Mostly, these glimpses just created for me a very sad and gloomy picture of the South. I know that there must be a place teeming with life somewhere there but it's hard for me to imagine it. All I can think of is emptiness, a couple of the families, some with more than others but not necessarily rolling in dough either, all just existing but not really living.

3. Lorena will do anything to get out of Lonesome Dove, even if means being the sole woman on the cattle drive to Montana. Would you have done the same? Thoughts on what might be up ahead for Lorena?

 I definitely would have done the same. She really has nothing to look forward to in Lonesome Dove, especially when pretty much all that matter will leave. Life has somehow just happened to Lorena so far. It's about time she started directing what comes next. She will definitely be a source of dissent because every man in there wants her and will probably think nothing of wanting to 'have a poke' since she is a prostitute after all. There are also a couple of them who are in love with Lorie and that may turn into some dangerous situations.


Final thoughts:

I am liking this book more and more, a lot better than last week. I am genuinely looking forward to what happens next and am rooting for a few characters there. Something tells me this this novel will be a lot of fun.

Lonesome Dove Readalong - Chapters 1-10

Amy from My Friend Amy, together with Leah from Amused by Books and Melissa from Gerbera Daisy Diaries came up with this idea of reading Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry together over a prolonged period of time. Lonesome Dove is quite a chunkster and since I've had it on my shelf for a long time, I decided it was a great opportunity to jump on the wagon and finally get myself to read this classic. I think the fact that we'll actually be discussing what we read is what appeals to me the most because since I'm going to read a 900+ book, I might as well get something out of it. Anyway, today is the first discussion and if you'd still like to join, My Friend Amy's post has all the details. Amy is also the one to host the first discussion. Her, Leah and Melissa's thoughts on the first 10 chapters can be read in that post.

I decided to answer the questions in my own post. Here it is:

Have you read Lonesome Dove before or watched the movie? If so, why are you interested in revisiting the story? If not, why read it now?




I have never read Lonesome Dove, nor have I watched the movie. To be honest, I am not particularly drawn to western types of books or movies. Then why read this one? Because it is an American classic and I like to consider myself well-read (I know, it's a little bit conceited and not humble at all but it's fun nonetheless) but in order to be at least 10% true to that statement, I think Lonesome Dove is the one book in the western genre that has to be read, if I never read another one in my life.  I know I'm not making much sense. Lonesome Dove is a must-read and that's that.


The beginning feels like a strong set-up of character. Are you particularly drawn to any of the characters and their story?

The beginning feels so strong in setting-up of characters that it actually borders on boring, in my opinion. I want to feel drawn or interested in at least one of the characters but so far I couldn't care less about any of them. I know I wrote that Lonesome Dove must be read in my previous paragraph, but the first 100 pages didn't feel particularly inviting. I really hope it gets better.




What do you like best or feel is strong in the story so far?

Unfortunately, nothing so far. If it weren't a classic and if I didn't commit myself to the readalong, I probably would put Lonesome Dove aside for some later (much later) time.


Melissa, Leah and Amy are truly enjoying this book, a lot, lot more than I am so I take it my view might be a little twisted :). Certainly don't take my word for it and get discouraged if you ever want to read Lonesome Dove, but rather read what the girl have to say about it.

Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier

I have been complaining lately about not reading as many books as I’d like to and quietly thinking that I have the worst luck with the quality of the books that I do manage to read (more ‘so, so’ ones than the wonderful ones). But then I read Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier and everything just got better. It is because of books like this one that I love reading because it makes me realize that one has to dig deep, long and hard to find true gems and once they are found to appreciate them better.

Max de Winter, the owner of magnificent Manderley estate, comes to Monte Carlo to recover after the death of his wife, Rebecca. While there, he meets a young girl, barely an adult, who is a mousy little thing working as a maid-in-training for a know-it-all, nosy Mrs. Van Hopper. Suddenly, a strange relationship develops between Max and the girl. They spend together enough time for her to fall in love with Mr. de Winter and his sudden marriage proposal to her ends up to be a shock to everyone around including the girl. She agrees (what else could she do, it’s her dream come true) and after a few months of honeymoon, Max and new Mrs. de Winter arrive at Manderley. From pretty much the first day, Mrs. de Winter realizes that she would never be treated as the rightful wife of Maxim de Winter by the people who live in Manderley because this honor will always belong to mysterious, beautiful and very much dead Rebecca. And so what was supposed to be a dream life turns into a nightmare for the unsophisticated and timid second lady of the estate.

There wasn’t a single thing about Rebecca that I could criticize. Du Maurier had this wonderful ability to pull the reader into the gloomy, mysterious atmosphere of Rebecca right from the start. I didn’t so much read about this new to me world (a thing most readers look for when starting a book) as really experience it. The descriptive passages of nature and Manderley’s surroundings are beautiful and some observations on what may seem mundane, truly extraordinary. Here are excerpts on roses and rhododendrons (flowers that are common, albeit beautiful) that made me see them in a new light.

A rose was one of the few flowers, he said, that looked better picked than growing. A bowl of roses in a drawing-room had a depth of colour and scent they had not possessed in the open. There was something rather blowsy about roses in full bloom, something shallow and raucous, like women with untidy hair. In the house they became mysterious and subtle.(p.33)

We were amongst the rhododendrons. There was something bewildering, even shocking about the suddenness of their discovery. The woods had not prepared me for them. They startled me with their crimson faces, massed one upon the other in incredible profusion, showing no leaf, no twig, nothing but the slaughterous red (underline mine, I just love this phrase), luscious and fantastic, unlike any rhododendron I had seen before. (p.65)

The peculiar thing you’ll notice when reading Rebecca is that the second Mrs. de Winter is never called by her first name. As I turned pages, it became quite obvious why. The way she acts is as if she is never her own person. She is actually quite a sad character. Her innocence and naiveté about love, future life in Manderley and I think, life in general are recipes for disaster as it’s quite easy to have them shattered by the first evil person that comes her way. In this case the girl had a very bad luck of contending with evil Mrs. Danvers and most importantly, with dead Rebecca. Mrs. de Winter’s submissive behavior became quite frustrating to me and I just wanted to go over there and shake her and tell her to wake the heck up and start standing up for herself. She finally had but I can’t go into the reasons (you’ll have to read it to know). The only thing I can say is she didn’t do it because she thought one day, ‘Okay, enough of this bullying, I am not Rebecca but I am a person that deserves respect and will get it!’. No, she did it only after having gotten a validation from another person.

Rebecca is called a classic, Gothic romance and I tell you, just when I thought I got it all figured out, I got smacked with a twist after twist. And the character of Mrs. Danvers has to be one of the most evil in the history of mysteries. I was glad to see her cry after Rebecca. It wasn’t because I am just such an evil person myself that enjoys the emotional suffering of others. It was because up to that point, I started thinking that maybe Mrs. Danvers died with Rebecca and it was her demonic ghost governing the Manderley household. I was relieved to find out she had human feelings.

It is true that it took me a long time to finish Rebecca, but instead of feeling the usual frustration that comes with reading a book for an extended period of time, I am happy I allowed myself the luxury to spend more time in the world of Manderley. It would have been a shame, had I read the whole book in one sitting.

Book Info:
Title: Rebecca
Author: Daphne du Maurier
ISBN: 0385043805
Published by: Doubleday

If you'd like to read others' opinions on this book please visit:

eclectic/eccentric

Weekly Geeks: One Title/ Author Collection

Weekly Geeksters, tell us, do you have a collection, (or are you starting a collection,) of one particular book title? If so, what's your story? Why that book, and how many do you have, and what editions are they? Share pictures and give us all the details.

Or perhaps you dream about starting such a collection. What title would it be and what would it take for you to get motivated to start collecting?

Or maybe it's the works of a particular author you collect (or want to collect) instead a certain book title?

I am crazy about books, no question about it. However, I think my madness still has more levels to reach since I do not have a collection of one title. I have actually never given it a second thought. My bookshelves are already double stacked (horizontally and vertically sometimes) and there is really no space in my tiny house to put more. However, now that I read this Weekly Geeks question, I gave it more thought just to see what this one book would be, had I a big enough house with a beautiful, spacious library to show off my collection.


And yes, there is that one special book: Les Misérables by Victor Hugo. I had fallen 'head over heels' for this book back in high school and fifteen years later it is still my 'take to a deserted island' book. I absolutely love, love the story of Cosette and Jean Valjean. I have read it several times now and it gets me everytime: I don't cry...I weep and weep and then weep some more, and worst part is, I somehow always end up finishing it at night, staying up until 3 or 4 in the morning crying my eyes out. When I get up the next day, I look like I am suffering from a hangover of a lifetime.

Anyway, having a blessing of speaking two languages, I read Les Misérables in both Polish and English translations. Both were fantastic. My dream is to one day learn French so I could finally read this work of art in the mother tongue of Hugo's. I cannot even imagine how beautiful this novel really is, as there is always something lost in translation.

Polish Version

Well, there it is: one day I will master French, I will own a big house with a library the size of my entire cottage I live in now and the central spot will belong to all different copies, originals and translations of Les Misérables (Polish title, by the way, is Nędznicy).

2 in 1: Morrigan's Cross and The Age of Innocence

Because I am slightly lazy nowadays and my brain refuses to do more than is absolutely necessary, I decided to just write two quick reviews in one post instead of separate posts with elaborate opinions of each book. The two books were both very different but almost equally enjoyable.

Morrigan’s Cross by Nora Roberts is a first book in the Circle trilogy. It was my first experience with Nora’s writing and from what I understand the fantasy genre this book was written in is also her first foray into paranormal. The gist of the book is that six people with different skills (a magician, a witch, a vampire among them) get together to train and prepare for the battle against Lilith, the queen of vampires. Whether they win or lose will decide the fate of the whole world. It’s pretty much in everybody’s interest that they win. Otherwise, humanity will be taken over by evil, bloodthirsty vampires.

I actually found myself weirdly interested in the story and the fates of main characters, especially Cian and Hoyt. Twin brothers whose lives were brutally changed when Lilith turned Cian into a vampire. Now, centuries later they are part of the Circle fighting the evil forces. Considering that the writing isn’t very profound and the whole premise is in truth rather simplistic, the longer I stuck with it the more I liked it. I could tell that fantasy was probably not the strongest forte of Roberts’ but reading was quick and entertaining. If you are looking for something easy to read during these lazy summer evenings and don’t really want to get emotionally invested in the book, you’ll probably like Morrigan’s Cross. I would especially if you’re like me and from time to time need to relax your brain and delve into a pleasurable fantasy with a hint of history and a nice romance plot without the over the top sex scenes.

The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton is obviously completely different. It is a classic in American literature and yet I have just recently gotten to read it. And what a shame that I waited so long. I think that partly to blame is the movie made in the ‘90s that against my better judgment I watched before reading the book. I didn’t like the movie and therefore when I finally decided to read Ms. Wharton’s book I was very surprised at how good it was. The book is a satirical portrayal of the New York’s upper society of the late 19th century. At the forefront is Newland Archer, a product of the society who considers himself well versed and in favor of all that his family and all others around him hold dear. That is until his cousin, Ellen Olenska, comes back from Europe after a failed marriage and with a baggage of experiences that all welcoming her back would rather not know about. All of a sudden, Newland finds himself dealing with feelings towards Ellen that should have been directed instead towards his fiancée May Welland.

The Age of Innocence is a real treat. It’s very funny if one happens to like the sarcastic humor which always has a deeper purpose than simply providing entertainment. The book’s timelessness is the fact that the shallow values and superficiality of 1870 New York still is alive and well today. In reality, Ms. Wharton had probably no idea that what she criticized over a hundred years ago would be thriving in upper social classes so many generations later. The people then preferred to live in blissful ignorance of others’ emotions and feelings. Opinions mattered only if they were one and the same and in accordance with what was acceptable. The word ‘individuality’ probably did not have a spot in their dictionary and denial was at the top of the game. Only the right clothes mattered, the right dinner invitations, the right occupations and the right entertainment. Anything outside of the generally accepted cannon was scorned upon and if one didn’t follow the rules, they were shunned from the society. It actually reminded me greatly of The Real Housewives of New York and NY Prep kids. Granted, the times and the generally accepted mores are different but the core of it remains the same.

'Frenchman's Creek' by Daphne DuMaurier

I always am hesitant when it comes to reviewing or writing about classic literature. It’s not because I don’t like it but quite the opposite. Classic writers had the true talent for creating art but it is very often very difficult for me to pinpoint exactly why I loved a certain classic. The overall quality rather, the ability to transport me to the world seen through the eyes of its creator, the feel of the novel and how it leaves me in the end are the signs of true talent and not a learned skill. And so is the case with Daphne Du Maurier and Frenchman’s Creek.

Lady Dona St. Columb suffers from what one might call a mid-life crisis. It’s the age of Restoration in England and as she approaches her thirtieth birthday, Dona feels fed up with London, with her husband, and with herself. To remedy that, she escapes the life of boredom and aimless living by going with her two children to her husband’s country estate in Cornwall. She only seeks internal peace and to find her true self, away from the demands of high court and the phoniness of those around her. She finds peace at Navron House but not for long, because she also finds a French pirate and his crew moored in the creek near the house. And with the Frenchman’s appearance her true sense of adventure awakes. But the quest she embarks upon has its consequences which sooner or later Dona will have to face.

I thoroughly enjoyed Frenchman’s Creek. The opening of the novel seems quite different from other historical fiction. It starts with a description of the creek and Navron House in contemporary settings (contemporary to Du Maurier) and from there a reader is transported to a different time and thrown into the lives of people, who are now forgotten but who once occupied this place. I love how the nature is an omnipresent element throughout the novel. It seems to be a part of Dona, of her other self she wasn’t aware of while living in London but that she found in the country. The descriptions of the birds’ songs, of grass leaves swaying in the summer breeze, and the ominous views of the river and the creek were all very evocative and really aroused my imagination as I didn’t think they could. I found it really wonderful how Du Maurier, through her writing, managed to impose on me the changing atmosphere of Dona’s life. The first part of the book made me feel as if everything stood still, just like I imagined Dona felt about her life, bored, disenchanted and lazy, with no purpose and no goal ahead. However, as she meets the pirate and a wonderful craving for change and adventure rises within Dona, I felt my own excitement growing. I actually think that only a chosen few writers have managed to influence my mood and my manner of reading as the story progressed to such extent. Add to it the romance, the mischief and quite a few thrills, and you have a great book. Dona’s character was naturally my favorite one. This woman’s longing for change, escaping mundane life, refusing to accept that this is it, the end of the road for her speak of great courage for those times. She wants to find her own, true self and will not escape from it once it’s found. I really liked Frenchman’s Creek, it reminded me why classics are classics, endured for many generations and will be read by countless others.

*******

Special Thanks to Danielle J. from Sourcebooks for sending me a copy of this book.

'The Plague' by Albert Camus

How does one review a classic? I have always had major issues with doing that. I do enjoy reading classic literature, probably more than any other genre, but when it comes to actually reviewing it, I get anxious. Classic literature is, after all, art. And I do not consider myself an art connoisseur or an art critic in any way. Therefore, I struggled with an idea of writing a review of The Plague by Albert Camus. My inclinations were to dive instantly into analyzing, interpreting and playing that torturous game of ‘what the author wanted to say’. In the end, I realized that such approach was not going to work unless I would be writing a thesis on Camus, which I have no desire to do.
The action of The Plague takes place in the ‘40s, in the town of Oran. It is a town just like any other all over the Western world. The inhabitants are busy living their materialistic lives consumed with careers, successes, money and goods that can be bought for it. The lives they lead are, in short, industrial lives with no place for emotions, existential thoughts and spiritual insights. Until, one day the rats start coming out and dying right in the open. The reader already has an idea of what’s to come but not the residents of Oran. They are still preoccupied with their orderly lives and the phenomenon of dying rats is nothing more than an inconvenience and an annoying intrusion upon their ‘in the box’ reality. However, slowly, but surely Oran drowns in the plague, people, instead of rats are dying by hundreds every week and those who are not infected yet find themselves imprisoned in their own homes, their own town, having no choice but to look on their lives from a different, emotional perspective.
Camus tells the story through the eyes of an objective narrator, intertwining it with accounts of personal experiences of major characters: Tarrou, Dr. Rieux, Cottard, Rambert, Grand and Father Paneloux. They are all very different people, who would otherwise never have met and gotten close, but the disease devouring the town brings them together in many, sometimes unpredictable, ways. As it goes with almost all classics, there are various ways The Plague can be looked upon. And not one single opinion will be the correct one. My thoughts on it are many. But the most important one is that it has to be read. Whether one likes it or not, whether the writing seems tedious or there is not enough action going on, and whether it seems difficult to comprehend or not deep enough, it is a novel that is worth the time and effort. Besides Camus’s word artistry, the universal theme is what everyone should have the time to ponder upon at least once in their lifetime. The plague is not just a medical affliction, it is a phenomenon which, in its cruelty and indifference, cuts those afflicted with it off from the rest of the world, from their own families even and leaves them utterly alone with their individual suffering. Now, with death glaring at them and coming ever so closely, they question their lives, their morals, they ask who brought it upon them and why, and they never really get one satisfactory answer. How many plagues have afflicted our world since The Plague was written? I think that every misery that brings death, isolation and suffering of the innocents is that plague.

Favorite quote:

“Doubtless today many of our fellow citizens are apt to yield to the temptation of exaggerating the services they rendered. But the narrator is inclined to think that by attributing overimportance to praiseworthy actions one may, by implication, be paying indirect but potent homage to the worse side of human nature. For this attitude implies that such actions shine out as rare exceptions, while callousness and apathy are the general rule. The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding…men are more good than bad…but they are more or less ignorant, and it is this that we call vice or virtue; the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance that fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill.”

CHALLENGES: 100+ Reading Challenge, 999 Challenge, What's In a Name - 2, 2009 Ban on Spending Challenge

The Weekly Geeks - my very first time!

It is time for my first installment of Weekly Geeks. I am a complete newbie, I have just found out about it but I think the idea is great and I hope to post often. Enjoy!

1) How do you feel about classic literature? Are you intimidated by it? Love it? Not sure because you never actually tried it? Don't get why anyone reads anything else? Which classics, if any, have you truly loved? Which would you recommend for someone who has very little experience reading older books? Go all out, sell us on it!

I absolutely love classic literature. Sometimes I feel that no one writes nowadays as they used to in the old days. I can see the obvious love for words in there, the flawlessness of writing and the magical ability of a writer to create a world, characters and atmosphere with which I, as a modern reader, can still identify and appreciate. The classic I have truly loved from the first time I read it is Les Miserables by Victor Hugo. It makes me weep, like no other novel, every time I read it. Actually most of the classics I love and appreciate are French: Alexandre Dumas’ Queen Margot, Honore De Balzac’s Old Goriot. But there are others as well. Being Polish, I have my Polish writer on the list of favorites as well. His name is Henryk Sienkiewicz and Quo Vadis is very special to me. It won the Nobel prize in Literature, it was the first classic I read and the one that encouraged me to read more. So I guess I could say I have much to be grateful for to Mr. Sienkiewicz.
All the classic literature taught me more about life than all the textbooks I had to study in school put together.

2) Let's say you're vacationing with your dear cousin Myrtle, and she forgot to bring a book. The two of you venture into the hip independent bookstore around the corner, where she primly announces that she only reads classic literature. If you don't find her a book, she'll never let you get any reading done! What contemporary book/s with classic appeal would you pull off the shelf for her?

It would be a book I read last year and loved from the first pages. It’s The Religion by Tim Willocks. It has the appeal of Count of Monte Cristo by Dumas. The action is breathtaking, the many issues presented there are deep and thought-provoking, and the writing, once again, is flawless. I have a review of the book posted here so instead of cheating (copying and pasting), I invite you to read the original post.