"K" is for Kerouac

An update on my K book "On the Road" by Jack Kerouac, which I mentioned in the Sherlock Holmes post and started a while ago. This book has been indefinitely placed on hold. I just wasn't getting into it. I am open to re-visiting this book, but it didn't grab me, and as I have previously mentioned on this blog, I am adopting a new policy on this issue, in that I am not going to make myself slog through a book Im not into when there are so many great books out there. So again, I am open to re-visiting this book, but its put away for now. Any opinions to share on your own experience on reading this book? I know so many people who have enjoyed it.

"M" is for Montgomery

Ahoy!

So I have been skipping a bit in the alphabet. Lately, because I got an AWESOME kindle and while I was at a conference a few weeks ago I was just reading whatever I could download for free on my Kindle. This brought me back to the "Anne of Green Gables" series, which I very much enjoyed as a pre-teen. This series is my "M" letter, yay for Lucy Maud Montgomery.

I enjoyed Anne of Green Gables a lot, even as an adult. I just find Anne and Marilla's interactions hilarious! Anne says the most ridiculous things. I enjoy her drama and zest for life. I also love how sweet Matthew and Marilla are - even though neither of them wants to admit it until the end, they love Anne to pieces. In overview, for those who haven't read it, this series takes place on/around Prince Edward Island, Canada and is about an orphan, Anne, who is adopted around age 12 by an older brother and sister who run a farm. This series, at least the first book, I haven't started the second yet except for a few pages, isn't really about plot and more about the development of the characters. In that way its a really neat book, the characters are very well developed and you get to know them really well - there are times where I felt like I could predict how Marilla was going to react to Anne's silliness. This book, I imagine, sets the foundation for the rest of the series, because you really get to know the characters and see how they develop through this period in their lives. Its fun to read and fills me with warm fuzzies.

Skipping Through the Alphabet

In other exciting news, Justin gave me a Kindle for my birthday. ITS SO COOL PEOPLE!! I wanted one so that I could download articles that I need to read for classes and now I am totally in love with reading on it, period. I was a bit hesitant about it, I mean I love books and will not change to the dark side on that. I did think however, as I was re-reading "The Deathly Hallows" that it would be way easier to read on e-reader...anyway. I took that opportunity to download free e-versions of as many of my challenges books as I could. I was able to download my "K" book, On the Road by Jack Kerouac and my "X" book, which is actually a "D", The Extraordinary Cases of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I started reading these simultaneously, out of excitement and got totally wrapped up in Sherlock Holmes! I am actually on my fourth Sherlock Holmes book right now, but I did start with the extraordinary cases.

So, "X" is for Sherlock Holmes.

This series I am finding SO MUCH FUN to read!! Reminiscent to me of the Tarzan series, in that there are many different books in this series, they differ in length, and you can blast through them. (fun fact: I also downloaded a ton of Tarzan books on my Kindle). This is another book where I am constantly reminded of other versions I have seen of it, notably, The Great Mouse Detective (Yes, I am that cool), though I haven't watched many other versions. What strikes me about these books, beyond how fun and quickly you can read them, is that Sherlock Holmes is not that likable of a character. He's sometimes condescending, does coke when hes bored, and is rather emotionless at times. BUT the books are narrated by Watson, who is quite likable, and though he lacks the deductive powers of Holmes, is still bright but has a lot of heart and greatly admires Holmes, as well as many of the "clients" they help.

The Extraordinary Cases, is kind of a memoir. It is a chronicling or several short cases, compiled by Watson to kind of "record" for posterity the many adventures he assisted Holmes with. The cases chronicled cover a ton of subjects, from one of the few times that Holmes was foiled, to stories that touched their hearts, to rather sinister plots blown by Holmes. The shortness of each chapter is fun and I often found myself trying to figure it out before Holmes. Often, I could guess the persons involved but not at all how to bring all the pieces together. It has motivated me to re-read "The Hound of the Baskervilles" which I did enjoy when I read in MS or HS, but I don't remember much about. I have also enjoyed learning bits about the time period that it was written in, for example, Watson often references his time serving in a war in Afghanistan for England.

I've gone on to read another couple of short stories about Holmes and downloaded several. From what I can figure on the Kindle online store, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was rather prolific, he wrote MANY Holmes stories as well as many other books that are non-Holmes related.

Additionally, this may be a bit random, but reading this has often reminded me of Alfred Hitchcock's short films (and show, watch it, its stream-able on Netflix), in that they are both short mysteries, often have dark or sinister themes, but don't scare the crap out of me because they are not graphic or random, but very logical and straightforward with dark things happening to people who partake in dark stuff. I'd be curious is anyone else makes this connection or if its just me.

PS> I kinda want a Sherlock Holmes outfit.

"J" is for Jonson

I skipped my "J" book for now "Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man", though I am actually really excited to read it. I just haven't been able to track it down at the UWM or the Milwaukee public library. Apparently, its rather popular.

"I" is for Irving

For my "I" book I chose the collected short stories of Washington Irving. This book, while ok, made me realize an error I created in my original list. I had chosen so many American writers of this era (pre-Civil war) that when I got to this book, I must say I was getting a little sick of that time period and writing style.

This book was allright, though honestly, I didnt finish it. Usually I can get myself to slog through but I thought of something a librarian had told my grandma (who works in a library) that we had discussed. This librarian's philosophy was that boos aren't worth slogging through, if they don't grab you in the first hundred pages or so (I know...100 pages, but considering I have read 300 pages of Harry Potter in the last days I guess thats really not much) they aren't worth the effort, because there are SO MANY OTHER GREAT BOOKS OUT THERE!! I got a little stuck on this idea while trying to get through this book. I'd really like to know others' ideas on this concept.

I did read a few short stories, and I definitely enjoyed reading the original "Rip Van Winkle" story, though definitely, the wishbone version was stuck in my head the whole time, lol. Oh Wishbone, that show really stuck with me, even though I don't remember being that into it.

In other news, my apologies for the lateness of this post, I definitely abandoned this book in like, September.

Prelude to: H is for Hawthorne

Here I come "The House of Seven Gables"!!!

I really hope I enjoy this book, I had to plod through a couple of my more recent selections but Ill take the exposure. I really enjoyed "The Scarlet Letter" so Im hoping to enjoy this book, which Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote in the ten months after the Scarlet Letter was published (according to wikipedia). I also enjoyed "The Crucible" so I suppose I enjoy this time period. However, I read both of those under the direction of an excellent teacher (shout out to Mrs. Reschke!) so we'll see if I can guide myself as well.

I find having a class, or even just another person who has read the same book, available to consult really useful when reading a dense, heavy book. Some things don't need this, or don't need it as much. For example, my favorite "genres" if you will, are Muslim Womens Memoirs (I realize thats a really specific area, lol) and African American literature. I know enough about this areas from classes, other readings, that when I come across things Im not familiar with in reading I can often figure it out or know enough that some quick googling clears things up.

In any case, I am excited to start reading this book and will snap it up at the library tomorrow. Im hoping I can find a cool edition, like I did when reading "Little Women". Note: Im still pissed off about the ending. Damn you Louisa May Alcott!! Sisters are NOT interchangeable.

G is STILL for Gordimer

So I just finished reading "The Conservationist". What an odd book. That is my main impression. I feel like I should have gotten more out of in, in that I feel like there were plot elements that I just didn't get.

The book is very famous because it was written at the height of the apartheid and it contrasts the experience of a rich, white Afrikaaner with the blacks who works on his "hobby" farm in the country.

I found it a bit hard to follow.

There was also a lot of sex weirdly entwined in it. This made the book creepy and confusing at times.

I did like though, the way the landscape/the land was almost a character itself in the book. All of the people in the book, even through their vastly different cultural and economic experiences had connections with/ feelings for the land, though in very different ways. So I liked that. It was also short.

I never got into any of the characters, except for being grossed out by the main character, but I think that was the point (he thinks hes above the whole apartheid thing, just looking out for himself, apolitical my ass).

I wish I had more to say about this book but it just never really grabbed me and I had a hard time following it.

In any case, Im onto my next book, yay!

atlas shrugged (rand)

After six weeks--which included starting a new job, moving, and a reader's block--I have finished Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I really should have finished this AT LEAST three weeks ago, but such is life.

Now, I have a lot to say about this novel, so bear with me.

I'll start out with the plot. Ayn Rand classifies it herself as a mystery--"not about the murder of a man's body, but about the murder--and rebirth--of man's spirit." It's about John Galt, the man who stopped the motor of the world by going on strike with all the industrialists, the producers, and the creatives in the world. They wanted who they called the "looters" (the people who wouldn't think for themselves, who depended on the industrialists to provide for them) to understand what their world would be without those that produce. The men who threw up their hands at every question and said, "how should I know?" It is her philosophy exemplified by a story.

It's the story of Dagny Taggart, the VP of Taggart Transcontinental, the greatest railroad in the country, and her struggles to save a dying economy and her railroad. She is a brilliant businesswoman, a strong woman, and a force to be recokened with. She is surrounded (on most sides) by incompetent businessmen who rely on others and who commit to nothing. When something goes wrong, they turn their back on the problem and say, "it wasn't my fault! You fix it!" She finds relief in a few scattered businessmen who are across all industries--Hank Rearden in steel, Franscio d'Anconia in copper, Ellis Wyatt in oil, etc. As these men leech off the work and innovation of these industrial giants more and more, the "heroes" of Atlas Shrugged begin to disappear abruptly--leaving their business empty and rotting. Thus, throwing the country into even more of an economic crises.

The men who are seen as leeching off the industrialists are socialists (to put it simply). They believe that things should be shared, everyone should be equal, and men of means (i.e. Dagny and the rest) should provide for the weaker. This novel is first and foremost an expression of Ayn Rand's philosophy: objectivism. Using her words, objectivism is: "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Let me make it clear, I do not agree with this philosophy in the least. However, this novel made my sympathize with Dagny and the other industrialists. Why? (And this is where I believe Ayn Rand's brilliance comes into play).

These men (and women) are just trying to live their lives and do what they love, but the incompetent people surrounding them are ruining it--even, at times, asking too much of the industrialists. However, to understand why these people are so opposed to the idea of helping the less fortunate and able, you have to understand the type of people Ayn Rand paints. They take socialism to the extreme--the absolute extreme, to the point where it feels ridiculous at times. Most notably, at a party, a writer says with absolute certainty that they should extend fairness to all aspects of life and industry--including novels. He goes on to explain that he believes that the printing of any one novel should be capped at 5,000 or so, so that no author will be more popular than another. Now, I understand this is the idea of "share the wealth" just applied to something it's not normally applied to, but SERIOUSLY? As I said, a little too ridiculous at times to be believable in an intelligent society. (Which is fine--she paints such a picture of the economy and the stupidity of the people that I can believe they would be so desperate (and.. well, stupid) to result to such ridiculous measures).

And here's where my fascination with this novel is realized. I got into multiple arguments with other readers about the question of whether or not you can--and should--enjoy a book that clashes with your own personal belief system. I think it's very possible--as I just proved with the reading of Atlas Shrugged. I could still recognize Ayn Rand's brilliance at character-building, writing, and narrative genius. I could still enjoy the book as a simple narrative. However, I was surprised at some of the (what I viewed) complete close-mindedness of some people. One coworker said that he refused to read anything of hers because of the people that read her works.

Now, let me digress a moment. In recent years, Atlas Shrugged has been touted by conservatives as a warning against social progress as a reaction to the financial crisis (Neal Boortz, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh among them). As such, sales have increased, and I have a feeling men who want to look smart have been carrying around the book just to announce their political views--but without actually reading it (and I'll admit, after hearing some of this feedback I was self-conscious on the subway more often than not of what I was reading).

However, it's my personal belief that if Ayn Rand could see the type of men that are promoting her book today she would be disgusted. Those people that have made it so popular are the people that do not think, as we so often see on videos of far-right rallys and whatnot. They are--when asked questions pertaining to why they believe certain things--more often than not completely ignorant as to why they hold the beliefs they do. They say something inane like "Well Glenn Beck said it was right so it must be." Lines like that were reserved to the "socialists" in Rand's novel.

So, my personal belief is that instead of a warning against social progress and communal awareness, I think Atlas Shrugged is more a warning against stagnancy, ignorance, incompetence, and blind belief. She lived in a MUCH different time than we do.

Regardless of what I believe, anything that will make you think is worth reading. And that is the whole point of this challenge, right?

"G" is for Gordimer

And thus, with Ben Franklin tossed to the wayside (returned to the UWM library) I moved onto G, with Nadine Gordimer. Nadine Gordimer is a pretty famous author of South African literature. I don't know that much about the genre but I decided I wanted to try something new and I had also read Coetzee who is also South African I believe and I like African studies in general so I went with it.

So far, its an up and down book for me. At times I find it difficult to stay engaged, the characters, for me are still developing, I am not wedded (yet) to finding out yet what happens to these characters.

The main character is a Dutch, jewish businessman who buys a farm in the country to entertain himself on the weekends. At first I was very lukewarm with him, he didn't give you a lot to go on, didn't find out much about how he felt about what was going on in his life. Now, Im starting to dislike him because I just read a chapter with a rather, I feel, pervy scene in it. I do though, like that I feel he respects the Africans working on his farm MORE than the other farmers, not to say that he treats them with the utmost respect but he definitely spends time with more different kind of people than the men he works with and farms with.

Jacobus, the African who is in charge of the main guy's (can't remember his name at the moment) farm is interesting. He has to balance between making his boss happy and try to do the best he can for the rest of his community, who needs him to set them up with jobs etc.

There is also an interesting plot developing with the Indian community who is very insular and isolated and a bit adversarial with both the whites and the Africans.

But again, the book is I guess I would say minimalist so far. I couldn't describe a whole lot what has happened plot wise, even though Im like halfway through the book or why its called the "Conservationist". Hopefully next post I can connect these things together.

F- Is for Ben Franklin

So yeah, for my "F" book I chose the Autobiography of Ben Franklin. I chose this because generally I love the memoir/biography genre, I just find it really interesting to read about people's lives, the events, and how they make meaning of all that. Probably related to why I like psychology and chose that as my profession.

However, I will admit now, I only got about a third of the way through this book.

I found it boring.

It wasn't the most boring thing I ever read, certainly it was NOT THAT BAD. But I really couldn't keep with it. I was stuck about a third of the way through the book for about two months. So I finally abandoned ship.

I did not find this book stimulating because rather than a true autobiography I feel like it was more of an "accounting" of his days. It was very much lacking much emotion or interpretation to the events. I thought it would be fascinating - Ben Franklin was an interesting dude! But alas, no.

So I moved on a couple weeks ago to my "G" book.

NO MORE FAIL

AND LITTLE R SAYETH,

"THIS FAILING SHALL END. REGULAR POSTS SHALL COMMENCE AGAIN".

Literary Monster Mashups

I just read this blog and thought you might be interested... I know some of the books they talk about are on the Penguin Classics list!
http://readandlead.blogspot.com/2010/05/literary-monster-mashups.html

*"Monster Mashups" makes me think simultaneously of "the Monster Mash" and mashups from Glee!

1984

Added another to my favorites from this list. From the moment I started reading it, I was hooked. But of course, I love stories like this.

If you don't know, it is about a man living in the futuristic dystopian where the Party rules. The citizens are always being watched, and people are persecuted for crimes they didn't commit.. if the party was suspicious of you, you were erased from existence.. past, present, and future.

The over-arching theme I found in this book was the fact that humans, with enough force behind it, can ignore anything and be convinced of anything.. and how terrifying that fact is. Especially with everything that's going on with this Teaparty shit and Obama is a socialist nonsense, it's timely.

Orwell's vision was epic. The idea of Newspeak was brilliant. To systematically narrow language so there is no free thinking is so obvious, but something that is completely out of reach of most minds. I never would have thought of that, though I know very well that our language forms everything around us.

I felt, largely, that this was not about the story. Normally that's not something I would be thrilled about, but Orwell did it brilliantly. He was painting the future--his vision of hell--and not the life of this man. I think if he was trying to write a story and not a snapshot of the future, he would have had Winston overcome the Party's brainwashing. I wish he would have committed suicide when he was released from the Party, but he didn't. He eventually gave in and loved Big Brother. But it's not about Winston--it's about the weakness of the human race, the nightmare our nature holds.

This is why I started this list, to encounter brilliant minds like Orwell's.

hitopadesa

[note: I finished this a couple weeks ago, just been busy]
Hitopadesa, by Narayana, was composed from multiple Sanskrit fables and maxims some time between 800 and 950. It is the story of a king who must find a way to teach his three sons the virtues of being a king and what it means to be a good person. They will not listen to the king when he tries to teach them, and a priest volunteers to use his methods to make them listen. He tells them a series of stories about animals, and using unique situations he applies the maxims of kingship and virtue through them. The stories are separated into four books, one on gaining friends, one on splitting partners, one on war, and one on peace.

It was interesting to see how basic qualities of human relationships were expressed through the Sanskrit maxims and personified in animals. And of course, the simple fact that texts like these prove no matter how complex society gets, relationships between people stay the same. The stories were quirky, the animals believable and likable.

The structure confused me at times, because the way it was set up it would have a story within a story within a story, and sometimes I would forget what the original story was about.

Overall, it was an interesting read. I enjoyed it, but I always enjoy a peak into an ancient culture!

halfway point: woohoo!

This point kind of caught me by surprise, but here I am--at the halfway mark to the challenge I started back in September. I thought I would do a little recap, going over some random facts about my journey.

To remind everyone, this was the first half of my list:
A : Inferno by Dante Alighieri
B : Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
C : The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer
D : A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens
E : Parzival by Wolfrag von Eschenbach
F : The Beautiful and the Damned by F. Scott Fitzgerald
G : Faust by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
H : Les Miserables by Victor Hugo
I : The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Other Stories by Washington Irving
J : Dubliners by James Joyce
K : On the Road by Jack Kerouac
L : Passing by Nella Larsen
M : Moby Dick by Herman Melville

- Started on : September 3, 2009
- Ended [M] on : April 14, 2010
- Total Weeks : 25.5*
- Total Pages : 5189 (4517 Quality Paper, 672 Mass Market)
- Longest : [H] Les Miserables, Victor Hugo (1200 pages)
- Shortest : [L] Passing, Nella Larsen (160 pages)
- Favorites : [D] Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens ; [H] Les Miserables, Victor Hugo ; [K] On the Road, Jack Kerouac
- Least Favorites : [E] Parzival, Wolfrag von Eschenbach ; [M] Moby Dick, Herman Melville
- Most Surprising : [A] Inferno, Dante Alighieri ; [H] Les Miserables, Victor Hugo ; [G] Faust, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
- What I would Change:
[B] Tarzan of the Apes, Edgar Rice Burroughs --> Don Juan, Lord Byron
[E] Parzival, Wolfrag von Eschenbach
[J] Dubliners, James Joyce --> Non short story novel, James Joyce

* Time spent reading classics, excluding personal reading


Right now, I can only say I'm more than ever to get going on the second half of this challenge. I'm already thinking about what I want to read once I'm done with all this.

I've learned a lot so far, and this is a great thing.

Next up: the Hitopadesa, Narayana

moby dick (melville)

Ah.. Moby Dick. The halfway point in my series.

From what I understand, this is supposed to be one of the greatest (if not greatest) novels in the English language. An allegory for America at the time, it follows Ishmal, a sailor on a whaling ship, as he deals with his crazy captain who is hell-bent on killing the massive white whale, known as Moby Dick.

Maybe I am just dumb (which I've been told quite recently is probably true), but I just don't get it. The writing is wonderful. The base story was really great and intriguing. I really enjoyed that part of it.. but the extraneous stuff on whale lore, knowledge, and hunting was so hard to get through for me. I hated having to wade through 100+ pages of information that I felt was largely unnecessary.

I think if I were to read the abridged version I would love it. As it stands now, I'm a little disappointed. But I'm just clueless, I guess!

Prelude to "F"

Onto "F" which I meant to pick up a while ago at the library and just now did. Ben Franklin's autiobiography and other writings is my next selection. I am excited to begin this because Ben Franklin was an interesting character.

Not only was he a founding father and invented lots of cool things, like the farmers alamanac, bifocals, etc Im sure I will be able to add to this later. He also endorsed some pretty unpopular views for the time and was pretty open about it. He was pretty open as an abolitionist (I think) and as a bit of a flirt/philanderer. He totally had a son out of wedlock and still took care of the kid and was kinda like yeah...what now? Pretty out of the box at the time.

Additionally, and this might be the part I am most excited about, the edition I found at the library, totally accidentally, has illustrations by Thomas Hart Benton! I really enjoy Thomas Hart Benton, I discovered this love from the painting I put on this post which is in the KU Spencer Art Museum gallery, one of the first things I saw on campus. And hes a Midwesterner! Represent!

Anyway, hopefully I can keep the reading public (if it exists) better updated on this book as I move along.

Happy reading all!

little r

Note: The title of this painting is "The Ballad of the Jealous Lover of Lone Green Valley"

"E" is for Electra

Hello all!

First of all, a big WOOT WOOT to allison and katie for being faithful bloggers. Yay! I always appreciate your interesting comments and passion for reading. AWESOMENESS.

So for my "E" book I chose Electra and other plays by Euripides. This collection included 4-5 plays other than Electra. However, I regret to report that I can't comment much on the other plays in this book. I started reading Andromache and it was so tragic I couldn't keep it going. I barely made it through Electra frankly, and didn't try much else in the collection (which was actually pretty short) including Hecuba, Trojan Women and some others.

Electra itself was pretty tragic. ALERT TO PLOT SPOILERS*************** Obviously, as this was a collection of tragedies but I forgot how TRAGIC and DEPRESSING those Greek tragedies are. In Electra, she is basically banished into the country (which is supposed to be shameful) by her stepfather after her mother kills (I think...oops) her father. Her brother is also exiled. And guess what....it ends tragically. Thats about all I have to say about that.

Note: I think Carmen Electra might have been more interesting. And Im not into girls.

passing (larsen)

Hm..

I'm not sure how I feel about this selection. The writing, in parts, was beautiful and extremely well done and detailed.

It was so short, and I knew it should be filled with a lot of tension, but I just didn't feel it. It felt almost flat to me, like the characters were going through the motion.

Maybe, because it was trying to speak to a different audience than myself, it would resonate more with someone else.. but I just didn't feel what I know it was try to make me feel.

I don't regret reading it, but at the same time I'm not sure that it added anything to the list.

I'm reading Big Sur right now (yeah, I couldn't wait) which will only take a few days. Then, I'm on to my selection for M.. Moby Dick (Melville).

Which means I am halfway through the challenge. :)

I give up on Dickens

As the title of this post has already told you, I give up on Dickens.  I picked "The Old Curiosity Shop" by Charles Dickens as my "D" book.  I had never heard of the book before but I thought it was going to be about a young girl who lived with her grandfather in a curiosity shop.  I tried to finish the book.  I really tried but I couldn't do it.  I read my first three books in 2 weeks, no problem.  I had this book checked out for two weeks and had to check it out again to get extra time.  I have had it for over a week since I re-checked the book and only read a couple of chapters even though I was on spring break.  I found the writing to be kind of dry and I just didn't have any motivation.  Today I did something I never do, I skipped ahead in the book to see if it was going to get more interesting.  I pulled out my book mark and placed the book by the door to return to the library.

Here are my official observations from what I actually read before giving up.

• The beginning of the book is kind of creepy.  The young girl, Nell, is "not yet 14" and all these men are talking about marrying her because they hope her grandfather is secretly rich.
• There is a character named Dick Swiveller.  So at least his name was amusing.
• One of the characters, Mr.Quilp is just a mean and nasty guy.  (<--- understatement.)
• Dickens does trash talk!  This part cracked me up so I'm going to post a little excerpt.

Then, and not until then, Daniel Quilp found himself, all flushed and disshevelled, in the middle of the street, with Mr.Richard Swiveller performing a kind of dance round him and requiring to know "whether he wanted any more?"

"There's plenty more of it at the same shop," said Mr.Swiveller, by turns advancing and retreating in a threatening attitude, "a large and extensive assortment always on hand- country orders executed with promptitude and despatch- will you have a little more, sir?- don't say no, if you'd rather not."

Should I try another Dickens book?  If I do, it'll be awhile.

on the road

Wow.

My reaction to this book: wow.

Holy crap, Kerouac is a genius.. and I wish he had entered my life sooner. I really, really do.

Now, here's why I chose Kerouac: some of you may know my fascination with a Mr. Ben Gibbard, the leader singer of a wonderful band named Death Cab for Cutie. Now, he wrote this song for the album Narrow Stairs called Bixby Canon Bridge, which was about his journey to the cabin in Big Sur that Kerouac spent days in (Side note: with my continuing growing knowledge, I have realized that there are actually quite a few references to Kerouac in Death Cab's work, I just had no idea). It was all about hoping to be hit with inspiration, but only finding disappointment. I'm sure we've all been there: traveling somewhere we've desperately wanted to go because we think it'll be this life changing experience.. but it's just another place. Anyway, this is when I first heard about Ben's idol as a writer: Jack Kerouac. I had heard abut him before.. but never in much detail and I had no idea who he was, or what he meant to his generation. Then, about a year later, Ben Gibbard did an album with Jay Farrar entitled One Fast Move or I'm Gone: Music from Kerouac's Big Sur. Both of the singer/songwriters were influenced by Kerouac in a VERY deep way, and the quality of the album reflects that. All the lyrics are taken straight from Kerouac's novel, Big Sur (Ben's personal favorite), and before I had even read Kerouac I was in love with his words (although with Ben singing I would fall in love with anything). This then brings me to last August, when I made my list. I knew the impact Kerouac had had on my favorite writer.. why wouldn't I want to read his work? So I jumped at reading On the Road and it was one of the ones I was most looking forward to.

Now, I trust Ben's judgment. I really do. He is one of the most brilliant writers I've ever encountered. As a writer, I'm awed by his talents. And yeah, I was expecting a lot out of Kerouac. But what I actually experienced was far more than I had ever expected. And yes, this book is an experience.

On the Road, in it's entirety, is a journey. It follows Sal (Clarification: the main character's name is Sal Paradise, but this is a book taking directly from his own experiences.. think of it like a biography with a different name for the main character) as he travels from New York to California and back again (multiple times) with his friend Dean. I would liken Kerouac's writing style to more of a stream of consciousness approach: it is fragmented, disjointed, crazy, and absolutely beautiful. He has a way of capturing people in their entirety: Kerouac has this way of seeing through everything to the depth's of the soul, and making even the most ugly and despicable person beautiful. You get the sense that he understands that humans are intrinsically flawed and still sees them as these fragile and beautiful people, and the more flawed the more beautiful.

There is also, for me, a hugely nostalgic feel about this book even though I was about.. 40 years away from being born. It makes me sad for our generation and future generations. Gone are the days of traveling across the country on a whim, with just a vague inclination of where you're going (and possibly a road map), and the promise of the open road. Stopping where you will, interacting with the people across the country.. I can't even describe it. These days, it's too easy to plan from point A to point B taking this road to that road and not stopping. Everyone has cars, no one has time, everyone has a plan.

Kerouac has no fear. Half the time he picks up his life, travels across the country, and doesn't even really know why. He has no money, but he's inclined to think "I'll figure it out when I get there." I wish I was brave enough to do that.

To put it simply, Kerouac's writing is some of the most beautifully honest, heart-breaking, and simple prose I've ever read.. and the fact that he wrote it in three weeks on 24 sheets of paper taped together on his type writer.. the work of a genius. I find the writing impressive in an entirely different way than anything I've read so far on this list.
I finished this novel last night. What did I buy after work today? You guessed it.. The Big Sur. I will read it after my next Classics selection.. Passing by Nella Larsen.

I'll leave you with this:
"Dean took out other pictures. I realized these were all snapshots which our children would look at someday with wonder, thinking their parents had lived smooth, well-ordered, stabilized-within-the-photo lives and got up in the morning to walk proudly on the sidewalks of life, never dreaming the raggedy madness and riot of our actual lives, or actual night, the hell of it, the senseless nightmare road. All of it inside endless and beginningless emptiness. Pitiful forms of ignorance. "Good-by, good-by." Dean walked off in the long red dusk. Locomotives smoked and reeled above him. His shadow followed him, it aped his walk and thoughts and very being. He turned and waved coyly, bashfully. He gave me the boomer's highball, he jumped up and and down, he yelled something I didn't catch. He ran around in a circle. All the time he came closer to the concrete corner of the railroad overpass. He made one last signal. I waved back. Suddenly he bent to his life and walked quickly out of sight. I gaped into the bleakness of my own days. I had an awful long way to go too." - Jack Kerouac, On the Road

dubliners

As little r pointed out.. no posts for awhile. On my part, that's because I finished Dubliners on Thurs. and never got a chance to sit down and write about it until now (this being my first day off in a week).

Having had such problems getting through Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Other Tales I was dismayed to find my next selection, Dubliners, a series of short stories as well. I got through this one in about a week, which was good.

(note, I'm basically going to be comparing Irving and Joyce in this post.. if you need to see my reasons about why I can't comment on short stories, see my post about the Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Other Tales)

I believe that Joyce did a better job of creating a coherent whole out of disjointed stories. Whereas Irving was trying to create sketches in time, Joyce was trying to create a portrait of a people. Irving's stories seemed to largely be disjointed, focusing on separate instances / people and capturing them in that moment. He was not trying to paint a portrait of a collective people like Joyce, rather a portrait of experiences. Irving focuses largely on specific incidents: sometimes melancholy, sometimes supernatural.

Just like Irving, Joyce does a wonderful job of describing people and their habits, but unlike Irving he is able to connect all of his characters under the umbrella that they're all "Dubliners." This is how he connects each of his stories to the next, allowing his characters to relate to each other through their shared heritage, culture, and interests. I think this is largely what makes me feel like Joyce was able to connect his stories in a better way to each other.

Does this make it better than Irving? Not necessarily. There are some things I really loved about Irving's supernatural stories, or the ones that really got close to the human condition (the Widow and Her Son). By the same token, there are some things about Joyce's stories that I would elevate above Irving.

That having been said, I am starting Kerouac's On the Road today, and really really looking forward to it. I had to have a short break to read the finale to a series I've been reading for 5ish years now, though. Finished it last night, so I'm all ready for my next classic! :)

What "little r" Has Been Up To

No new posts since Feb 28th?! What is happening to us people! Penguin year team - lets pull out the stops this week!

In honor of my lack of blogging, I would like to explain what I have been doing instead. Nothing is a good replacement for some enjoyable reading but this blog is also about what KEEPS me from doing the reading I love and since it has been quite a while since I finished a letter, I thought I would share.

I think the first stumbling block was my letter "E" itself. Electra and other plays by Euripedes. Oy. All tragedies. what was I thinking? I hate tragedy! Positive energy! I started it with the play "Andromache" which was all about death and murder and rape and other awful things, in ancient Greece. Needless to say, I couldn't get into it. I have skipped ahead to the last play (I think there are about five) which is the namesake of the book, Electra. It is also beginning with tragedy but I am hoping it picks up a little more.

In other news, I have been working like crazy in the department. So many tests, article critiques, and thesis related projects to work on I have been in the office more than my usual 45-50 hours. Last week, I got home one night at 630, which was EARLY and I thought to myself, I have made some poor life decisions. I know it will turn out in the long run but some days, oy.

In good news, my thesis is coming along swimmingly; I am completely decided on the design all those other good things, now its implementing and writing, writing, writing about it to get it going.

Please share what is keeping YOU from doing the reading you love.

Lewis Carroll- Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

This book was a pretty quick read.  The version I checked out from the library had a lot of illustrations that I enjoyed as I read the book.  I now want to watch the Disney version* of Alice in Wonderland again... I can't remember if everything in the book was in the movie or if I read the book when I was younger and just didn't remember.  I wanted to read it all in one night since it was due back at the library the next day (shouldn't have checked out 3 books at once) but I got kind of bored after a couple hours of reading.  I could see myself reading it to a little kid and enjoying that more than reading it myself.

I'm sure you are all familiar with the story but just in case you aren't, it is about a little girl named Alice who gets bored sitting with her sister and ends up crawling down a rabbit hole into a fantasy world where everything and everyone is "mad".  I enjoyed the wit and all the puns in the book that made some of the character's conversations almost nonsensical.  There are also quite a few riddles that don't have answers.  Overall, this was just a funny book.

After reading the book, I went back and listened to Jefferson Airplane's song White Rabbit- interesting song!

Alice in wonderland - white rabbit by Jefferson airplane from BPlotkin on Vimeo.


*I think the Disney version combines Alices Adventures in Wonderland with Through the Looking Glass because some of the characters I was expecting were not in the book.

Introducing our Guest Blogger

Hello all!

I just wanted to say a few words thanking Katie for guest posting and introducing our guest blogger who I hope will continue to share some of her thoughts with us.

Katie and I have been friends since middle school and thus, have loved books together for many years. Katie is currently an art teacher and the only one still in KS (I MISS OUR STATE) and so adds another perspective to our blog.

A few random thoughts:

I found it so fun and interesting that one of your first books was Jane Eyre. I remember Mrs. Arnold encouraging us to read it long ago. I think I started it and was unable to finish it. I can't say much more because I didn't read that part of the post because I want to read the book eventually.

Jane and Jane

Hi everyone!  The first two books on my challenge list were Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey and Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre.  I'm sure this will be long as I love details and am not so great at being concise.  You've been warned.

Northanger Abbey- I picked Northanger Abbey because I am more familiar wth Austen's other books and had never really heard about Northanger Abbey.  Also, the heroine's name is Catherine (my name is spelled Catharine) and that made me happy.  As a child, Catherine is described as sort of a tomboy, more interested in playing outside in the dirt than tending to flowers and her studies.  When she grows to the ripe old age of 17, Catherine travels to Bath with friendly neighbors, the Allens, where she makes new friends, goes to balls and plays, and finds a love interest, Mr.Tilney.  Catherine is naieve and doesn't see anything but the best in others.  Her first friend, Isabella, is obviously just using Catherine and is way more interested in flirting and trying to "marry up".  Catherine's brother, James, comes to visit in bath so they spend some time with Isabella and Isabella's brother, John (who is a tool and wants to marry Catherine.)  Catherine would rather be spending time with Mr.Tilney (I like him) and his sister Eleanor, who she had befriended.  Finally, Catherine ditches her Isabella and John when she starts to realize they aren't the best company and is invited to accompany the Tilney's to their home in Northanger Abbey.  Catherine and half the other characters in the book are interested in reading Gothic novels which were apparently popular at the time (they especially like the Mysteries of Udolpho) so she's pretty excited to be going to stay in an Abbey.  Mr.Tilney is several years older than Catherine and while she amuses him with her observations and good naturedness, Catherine enjoys learning from him.  I don't think I've included any spoilers so far, you know from the title of the book that she will end up at Northanger Abbey!  So without telling you too much about the end, something bad happens then all loose ends are tied up and she lives happily ever after.

Observations:

• I really like the long sentences!  Some are as long as a paragraph.
• The language used was very interesting to me.  I read most of the book in a day but felt I had to concentrate on the vocabulary since several words are used differently than today.
• The book was Austen's first written and last published.  I have not read her other books yet but I kind of felt like it was written early.  She seemed a bit unsure of herself as an author.
• I watched the Jane Austen Book Club on Lifetime after reading the book and I liked some of their opinions of the book and characters.  Mr.Tilney was described as "such a flirt" and another character observed that it was a novel about novels.
• Austen is all  about propriety (seriously, when you look it up in the dictionary, it should say "see: Jane Austen's novels") but I didn't feel her female characters were limited or subdued.

Jane Eyre- LOVED this book.  Jane Eyre is described as plain physically but has an unusual personality.  She is independent and feels she must speak out when something is unjust, even if it is not "her place" to do so.  I got on wikipedia to see what year the book was published (1847) and they split the book into 5 sections.  As I was reading, I mentally split the book into three sections.

SPOILER ALERT!  I apparently love this book too much to not write about what happens.  You could read the first section safely and If you just want general observations about the book, scroll down.

1. Jane's childhood: Jane is an orphan who lives with her aunt and three cousins.  The aunt never wanted Jane but was made to promise her husband on his deathbed that she would raise Jane as her own.  Jane is allowed to live with them but is treated like a second-class citizen in the house.  Jane is treated awfully and her aunt ignores the constant abuse inflicted by her son.  Jane is eventually sent to Lowood school, a school for orphans.  At first the conditions are awful, until after an illness broke out and many of the girls died.  After the illness brings the school into the public eye, conditions improve.  Jane does well in her classes and teaches for a couple years until at age 18, she wants a new situation.  Jane advertises looking for a governess position and is offered a job at Thornfield.

2. Thornfield: Jane is governess to a little French girl, Adele, who is the ward of Mr.Rochester.  Mr.Rochester is almost 20 years older than Jane, kind of rough around the edges, and has lived a bit of a wild life.  Jane amuses Mr.Rochester and it is obvious to the reader though not to Jane, that he is falling in love with her.  He asks her to join him in the evenings and they talk.  Jane is very frank and give answers/observations that are unusual because they are so honest.  I'm always amazed at how the rich seem to have lived at the time.  They would go to a party and stay for a couple weeks socializing, playing games, and when visiting Thornfield, insulting anyone seen to be in a lower class.  Mr.Rochester tells Jane to join the party in the evenings but she tries to stay out of the way.  Some of the party-goers think nothing of insulting governesses and saying Jane looks stupid, etc. right in front of her.  Mr.Rochester seems to be courting Miss Ingram.  She is always by his side at the party and it is rumored they will marry.  Jane is jealous, of course, but tries not to think of it since she is just poor, plain Jane and her "master" can certainly not think of her the way she thinks of him.  Jane leaves for a while, to go visit her dying aunt who has requested her presence (she lied in a letter to a man who said he was Jane's uncle and wanted to leave her his money).  Jane is gone for a month and finally returns to Thornfield.  They converse in the garden and he speaks about his upcoming wedding.  Jane thinks he is talking about Miss Ingram and finally he explains that he always intended to marry Jane and only pretended to court Miss Ingram (gold digger) to make Jane jealous and realize that she is in love with him too.  I was so happy when it looked like there would be a happy ending.  Plans are made for a quiet wedding and Mr.Rochester tries to spoil Jane with gifts which makes her very uncomfortable.  THEN I realized that there was still a lot left in the book and I knew something bad was going to happen. 

3. Something crazy happens and the wedding can not take place.  Jane somehow finds the strength to leave her love because she feels it is the right thing to do given the situation.  She pays someone for a ride and when she gets out of the carriage, realizes she has left her money.  Jane is totally broke, hungry, exhausted, and without a friend in a strange place.  She tries to find work, tries to trade her gloves for her food, and wanders, destitute.  Jane eventually comes across a cottage, asks for food and is turned away by the housekeeper.  She can go no further and lays down on the doorstep to die.  A new character shows up, lets her in.  She eats, sleeps for days, regains her strength and stays with the family (two sisters and their brother) for a month.  Jane adopts an alias, gets a position as a teacher for peasant girls and is moderately happy though she still thinks of Mr.Rochester.  Then, hey!  Good news!  It turns out that Jane's uncle has indeed left her quite a bit of money and a lawyer has been searching for her for quite a while.  She admits her true identity and it turns out that the family she had stayed with are her cousins.  She shares the money with them because she's awesome.  The brother of the family is going to be a missionary and though he does not love Jane, he wants to marry her because she would be a good missionary's wife.  She refuses to marry him because she knows what it's like to be loved!  She decides to go see if Mr.Rochester is ok and finds out that he was injured in a fire.  He is left blind and without one of his hands.  He is so happy she has returned (he feared she was dead), the obstacle has been removed, and they marry and live happily ever after.

Observations

• 
  
  I think Jane is a good role model.  She does what she thinks is right, is independent and her own person.  When not satisfied with her place in life, she does something about it.  She put herself in danger to do the right thing.
• 
  
  When Jane's student, Adele, speaks, it is mostly in French.  This was a bit frustrating since I don't speak French but you could get the gist of the conversation based on Jane's answers being in English.
• 
  
  When mentioning towns, the author would frequently write "---shire" or "S----" instead of writing the whole word.  I'm all about imagination but that bugged me for some reason.
• 
  
  This book was described as an unusual love story and I think that's fitting.
• 
  
  Did I mention how much I LOVED this book?  You should totally read it.

Compare/Contrast

• I could tell that it was written later than Northanger Abbey because though longer, it was easier for me to read.
• Both books had female lead characters.  Both characters were good people, but I liked Jane's strength.
• Bronte spent more time in the conclusion than Austen.  The end of Northanger Abbey was very sudden.  The conclusion of Jane Eyre had more details and told more of the characters' future.
• I want to read more books by both authors.  Northanger Abbey was ok, not my favorite book but I do want to read the others (Pride and Prejudice, etc.)

the legend of sleepy hollow and other tales

It took me too long to read this (a few days less than it took to read Les Mis and about 900 pages shorter? Yeah..) I have an idea as to why. I've always had trouble staying interested in a collection of short stories, I think because I feel like I can put the book down and walk away from it for awhile because there's no overarching plot line that I'm invested in. That being said, let me make it clear my disinterest in finishing this in a timely manner (my original goal was a week, which I feel like would have been easily done) wasn't due to the content, it was just my difficulty with short stories.

I don't have much to say about this (again, because of the short story format). I enjoyed it.. Irving was really great at capturing humans in a really eloquent way. All of his characters were very much their own person, in that they all undeniably human. He painted these people that were extremely quirky, but human. Each had their own personalities. The interesting thing is that he never really spent much time describing the lesser characters. The only story I can think of (off the top of my head) that he really described more than two characters in depth was Sleepy Hollow (there I can think of four). The others, there was one (or two) main characters he focused on, and let all of the others gray in the background. Which is fine, it made the main characters all that more vibrant.

He also had a way with describing scenery, which was really great. Again, with his scenery he threw in details that were minor, and some might question the necessity for it, but it was those details that made the scenery that much more believable.

I found it really interesting that this collection of stories is what opened up American literature as a respectable work in the English's eyes. I never thought about it, but when America was first standing on its feet as its own country, there would be a lot of work in finding a distinct culture from their parent country and breaking out of that mold. Before Irving, the British looked down upon American literature as silly and flippant. There was a LOT of pressure as an American writer because much of what was popular in America was laughed at in Britain. As a newly formed country trying to find its place in the world to show England it can be just as good as them.. I can see how that would create fear in American writing.

My favorite stories from this collection are the ones that either deal with love or the supernatural.. Irving was very good at describing those two things.
- Rip Van Winkle
- The Broken Heart
- The Widow and Her Son
- The Spectre Bridegroom
- The Pride of the Village
- The Legend of Sleepy Hollow

Now, onward to Joyce's Dubliners.. after a quick break to read the next two Percy Jackson books :)

Backlog - "D" is for Dumas

Look, I got the penguin picture! hopefully this shameless promotion absolves any copyright issues.

Hello all!

First thanks to Allisonface for keeping us updated and reading something new and interesting.

I will try to be as interesting even though what I read certainly isn't new.

****SPOILERS AHEAD***** Again, I will try to keep it to a minimum.

So for my "D" I read Count of Monte Cristo. I chose this mostly because so many people I know loved it, Justin and Meredith both count this book as one of their all time favorites so I thought I should explore it. Ive had a copy for years and been daunted by it.

First let me say I accidentally read an abridged copy (didn't realize that till the end) and it was still like 660 pages. Whoa! However, I didn't have any trouble keeping with the pace of this book, maybe partially because I had seen the movie.

The premise of the book, as many of you know, is really in my mind the classic revenge story.

Basics:

-Man is screwed (really royally) by supposed colleagues
Loses: girl, job, basically life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
-Man tries to get it all back
-There is a happy ending? I question the happiness.

I think (without killing this complicated story too much with spoilers) my favorite part was his relationship and plotting with the Abbe in Chateau D'If. I thought the Abbe was so neat, I love that his whole life and character in the book revolved around learning and how willing, even in a place of despair, to pass this on. It was the most valuable thing he had and he gave it pretty freely (to more and less degrees with certain things). I thought that was awesome.

This took me a few months to read and it was a bit ago so I am not sure how to summarize the middle, as I do really want to encourage others to read this "classic". In any case, it takes the main character, Edmond, years and year and many hours of plotting to get "back" at those who wronged him.

In generally I really disdain revenge stories. In general, I hate the concept. I think energies are better spent elsewhere, its really crying, and throwing a powerful and mean fit, over spilled milk to me. Though this story was engaging even through my disdain.

The ending was odd to me - he really doesn't "get it all" back and Im not sure, given the ending, he ever meant too. What do others think? It was a bittersweet ending for me, though all that misfortune I hoped more would (rather magically I suppose) come of it.

Read it!! I think Im doing it injustice here trying to talk around the plot spoilers - its a gripping adventure and drama story.

Oh-My-God MOCKINGJAY!!!

So I'm very excited for this news, and I had to share. I'm basically going to be copying the images from this blog post, but oh well.

The cover of the third Hunger Games book was released today from Scholastic (see above), much to my delight. It is beautiful.

To show you how great the whole series looks together, here it is:

Wow. I cannot wait. The third installment comes out on August 24th. I've got my calendar marked :)

P.S. I will not lie, I'm more obsessed with this series than Percy Jackson and the Olympians.. although I love Percy Jackson, this series is incredible. And I would force this series on someone before I would force Percy Jackson on someone :)

P.P.S. Irving is going slowly. I don't know why, because I really love it. I think it's just because I haven't been feeling well..

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: the Lightning Thief

So, here it goes. :D

Note: I'm avoiding spoilers in this post, because I want everyone to read it. :) However, I will be revealing some plot points, but they're all things that are easily found out in the first book. I won't be going into detail with major plot points, but I might be touching on them (again, this is all stuff that's BASIC to the story.. nothing surprising here :) ).

The story introduces a "troubled boy" named Percy Jackson who has never been able to stay at one school for the whole year because strange things always happen to him. Through a series of events, he finds out that he is a demigod (son of a god and a mortal) and the gods of Olympus are still alive, well, and in New York City (Olympus is on the 600th floor of the Empire State Building). His only friend at school (Grover, a boy with a limp) is a satyr (hence the limp) that's been watching over him, and it's his job to bring Percy safely (key word) to Camp Half-Blood, a summer camp for demigods to help them train, come to terms with their parentage, and learn the ways of demigods/gods. He finds out that he is the son of Poseidon, one of the "Big Three" (Zeus, Poseidon, Hades). So why is he a big deal?

You may remember that Zeus always had a thing for mortals, and fathered children by them. Demigods by the "Big Three" are much more powerful than any other demigods, making them particularly powerful. This was all well and good until the 1940s when a demigod became particularly ambitious and caused World War II. After this, the Big Three made a pact to never father a child by a mortal again. This pact has been broken once before by Zeus, and now again by Poseidon.

Percy (short for Perseus) is accused of stealing Zeus' lightning bolt. Zeus believes that Poseidon is trying to take over Olympus, and the tensions on Olympus tighten. Percy takes on a quest to go to Hades (located in Hollywood) to retrieve the lightning bolt that he, logically, thinks Hades stole and framed him for it. Percy sets off with Grover and a girl from camp named Annabeth, a daughter of Athena (they are friends, but they fight a lot--their parents' have a long standing feud that makes Annabeth and Percy inherently dislike each other). There is also a prophecy surrounding Percy that no one will tell him the details of, because of the Greek mythology rule: never tell the hero their fate, or they will try to change it (unsuccessfully) which is carried throughout the whole series.

Overall, this story is really clever. The integration of the Olympians into the world today is really cool, and it makes sense. I can tell the author REALLY knows his mythology. It's written simply, but it's engaging--which is all that matters. The second book literally made me make this face: :-O at the end. It was so.. unexpected. Everything you assume through the first two books is completely thrown out the window when you finish the second book. Basically, if you enjoy mythology you'll enjoy this. And if, at the end of the series, you're hurting for more.. not to worry! Rick Riordan is coming out with a new series in March.. sort of the same thing, only with Egyptian mythology (which I am SUPER excited for).

I should probably finish the rest of this series though, right? Damn money..

this is my shameless plug about being awesome

Sooo.. I got to meet the cast of PERCY JACKSON on Wednesday at a Borders signing.

No, this has nothing to do with books (other than the movie was based on an awesome set of books) and no, this has nothing to do with classics, BUT I DON'T CARE.

I just want to say.. everyone should read the Percy Jackson books. They're really, really great. Not as great as Harry Potter (what COULD be as great as Harry Potter?) but definitely worth reading.

P.S. Logan Lerman? SO CUTE! I don't care if he's only 18.. he's legal!

/fangirl

Back log - "C" is for Cather

O Pioneers!


When I see the prairie again I feel like I should stand on top of a hill and shout that. I chose Willa Cather's "O Pioneers" for my C book because I had never read Cather before and had seen her titles come up in many a "classics" or "recommended" reading list. Ultimately I chose "O Pioneers" because though many of her novels are about trail blazing women and the prairie I thought from the summaries I read that this book combined the two the best and it did.

RED ALERT **** SOME SPOILERS AHEAD**** I tried to keep it minimal this time.

This book was a good one but a short one. I think i read it in about a week, and that would have gone even faster if I read more than a chapter or two a night. I would have to say her writing is nothing if not concise but I don't think the setting lacked for detail at all. As I was reading I definitely felt that I could clearly imagine the high plains of Nebraska during its first settlements with pioneers lonely, confused, and frustrated breaking their backs to make something of the land of tall grasses that just goes on and on for miles. Quite frankly sometimes her descriptions were rather eerie and leaving me feeling unsettled.

O Pioneers! is about a family of Scandinavian (now I can't remember if they were Norwegian or Swedish, shame on me) pioneers. They were successful shipbuilders in the old country (I want to say Sweden but Im not sure if thats because Im biased that way) who come to Nebraska to farm.

The main character of the book is Alexandra, who is all around bad ass. The book follows her building the farm, and her family, with the help of her brothers. Note, with the help of her brothers. She is definitely the leader and the one who makes things happen. Yet, a big part of the book, is that this strength puts her in a vulnerable position for the times. On the one hand, being a pioneer in the Nebraska plains allows her some freedoms - when everyone is struggling to make it people aren't going to be as particular about a woman acting out of order, being in charge of her family and the finances. However, she still has to play this part very carefully politically, making sure her brothers on are board with her, because they can support her just as easily as bring her down.

However, I really view this whole "farm building" thing as the back drop for the love stories in this book. Alexandra for a good part of her life denies herself (in some ways) of having any relationships outside of nurturing her family. I LOVED Alexandra and her much younger brother, Emil's relationship.

Another interesting plot was the "culture" clashes that were happening on the Plains. For some reason, it never occurred to me that back in the day, we didn't have racial lines to divide ourselves, and instead it was ethnicity, by way of which country your family recently came from, and though a lot of these cultural practices aren't around anymore, at the time there were huge differences between how the Swedes and the Czechs lived.

I enjoyed this book, even though it ended rather tragically. I much prefer happy endings (sorry, its simplistic but real life is tragic enough for me) and demand them when it comes to television but even though this book was filled with a lot of hardship and a few tragedies I still enjoyed it, in its own austere way.

Back log - "B" is for Burroughs

Hello all!

I am so sorry I have neglected this. It has been a terribly busy and tiring week. I don't feel like I have accomplished much in all this madness but alas thats the way it goes sometimes.

So, again RED ALERT ****SPOILERS***** ahead.



For my B author I chose Edgar Rice Burroughs who in addition to the Tarzan series wrote many other science fiction type novels (also serialized). The Tarzan series is actually enormous, something I learned in this process. It was hugely popular at the beginning of the twentieth century - so popular that there are 25 novels and tons of short stories in the Tarzan series.

The first novel "Tarzan of the Apes" was, in a word, fun. This book was just plain old fun. Action packed and light on the intellectual leanings it was a fun book to read and kept me up through the night wanting to know "omg wtf is going to happen to tarzan?!?". See, I would get so distressed I would slip into internet messaging lingo. Thats how exciting the adventures were.

I must say that Tarzan the Disney movie, what little I remember of it, departs GREATLY from this novel, not that an of us are surprised by that. Ok I was a little surprised. Though it is a large departure, its not as big of a leap when you read the other books, because the movie is really the first two books slapped together.

Whenever I watch movies based on the books it really gets confused in my mind which part was book and which part was movie for some aspects. Since I read about four of the first books back to back I am also a little confused about what was in which book to some extent. My apologies on that.

The first book is probably the one with the deepest running "themes" other than action packed fun of the four that I read. Obviously there is the man vs. wild thing but I actually found the concept and idea of family and the different things family means to be a big thing in this book. Its embedded in with lots of other things, but its there.

As we know from popular lore, Tarzan's parents are stranded on the coast of Africa and he is raised by apes. Whats interesting about this is how torn Tarzan is about the man vs ape thing. Even when he falls in love with Jane (which was so flaky Romeo and Juliette style, I see her, I love her. I don't buy that so much) he is goes back and forth whether he can really be like man and live like man with Jane.

I should note here, that everything in this book is embedded is deep levels of RACISM and SEXISM and general EXOCITISM (I feel like Im falling down the slippery slope of isms here) but its really worth noting. I could say, oh that was the times but I think thats a poor excuse. Yes, I realize calling all Africans "black savages" was acceptable at the time but even though that prevailed that wasn't acceptable for everyone and Im sure the author made plenty of money off juxtaposing Tarzan "the ape" yet moral man-ape above the "savage" Africans in his plotlines (which he does).

Also heavily sexist, with Jane fainting at the drop of the hat and needing to be rescued. Though Jane does have a feminist streak in her, not wanting to marry just anybody and learn about the world, but this aspect of her character is downplayed, ESPECIALLY after she marries Tarzan in later books.


Even against this backdrop, Tarzan does often explore "morality" and the laws of the white man, black man and the jungle all run into each other and he has to decide what is right for him, which is a developmental task everyone goes through. There are lots of sets of rules we could follow from our parents, our society, religion, etc, but which ones do we make meaning of?

However, the book (and the series as far as I've read) is really about adventure and its really good at that. Tarzan was the original MacGuyver taking down "Numa" the lion with whatever he could create in the jungle and surviving, on his own, in all kinds of societies from brute strength but also his own quick wit and thats what makes it really fun to read.

I recommend it, I know allisonface read this as well, so I would love to hear your reply to my post :) I may even like this more than Little Women, just because the ending of Little Women made me so ANGRY.

Thats all for now!

Look I added pictures!

les miserables (part ii)

WOW.

Alright, so for the record.. I doubt I can do this last part without saying SOME spoilers, because I'm going to complain about a few things. So.. you've been warned. :)

Jean Valjean is simply amazing. I don't think I've ever come upon a character that's so fully developed through and through than he was. He was, by far, my favorite character in the book. He's what every person should aspire to be. Yes, he had a rough start, but he had the strength to change. Yes, he needed a catalyst (the Bishop), but it was HIS choice to change, and no one elses'. And what did he do? He saved a town from destitution, he protected and raised an orphaned and mistreated child, he gave and gave and gave, he saved Marius and carried him through the depths of the sewers quite possibly to his own death, he sacrificed seeing Cosette because he thought Marius didn't want him there.. etc. etc. etc. So many things, and I'm sure I'm missing the half of it.

In the end, when Marius was so cruel to him and Cosette was seemingly indifferent to her father's disappearance it broke my heart. Seeing Valjean walk to their house every day, each stopping further and further away, and eventually not even leaving his house so he could die.. ugh. It was so unfair. I couldn't believe that Marius was so.. unforgiving. I mean, my god, yes he's an ex-convict but he raised your wife, he saved her from a life of servitude and poverty (one which she probably would not have survived). That should have been enough of a reason to forgive him of something he had done 30 some odd years before. If he had not been good, she would have not turned out "good." Marius was completely unfair. That he should passive aggressively turn away Valjean and make him feel so unwanted when he had given up so much.. so unfair.

AND THEN. After all that, when he realized it was Valjean that had carried him through the muck of the sewer on his back saving him from the battle.. only when he realized that was he all about bringing him back. I didn't like Marius much towards the end (if you couldn't tell).

Cosette turned out to be a disappointment. She was so interesting at the beginning of the novel, when she was a child. She was bright, full of life, and charms. Her innocence was very well done, but when she grew older she morphed into the typical woman figure from this time--serving her husband's every wish (even if it meant never seeing her father again) and completely oblivious to the things happening around her that really mattered. She fluttered through life without a care in the world, she only thought of being devoted to her husband. It broke my heart that after the first two nights Valjean had not visited her (when he stopped because of Marius' passive aggressive behavior to push him out) she had only noticed that he had not come ONE out of the two nights.

Javet really surprised me.. He was probably my second favorite "major" character. He was single-mindedness in his determination to take down Valjean, and when he had him in his clutches.. he just let him go. The struggle he went through, and his solution to quieting it, was very intriguing.

There were multiple times that I was surprised at the criss-cross of characters, how all of their lives weaved in and out of each other. But then you start to think how many characters you are familiar with.. how many back stories you've read.. and it starts to become understandable. The story was incredible. So much depth to it (I suppose that comes with the territory of being over 1,000 pages long). Every character I encountered in that book I felt as if I knew them, because Hugo always gave such great details into their lives. Even if it wasn't background, it was just how they lived, their morals, etc.

I think I will have to read Hunchback of Notre Dame..

this is a few days late..

I've been so busy, but this should have been posted a few days ago.

Author J.D. Salinger Dies at 91

I'm sure you're all aware of this, but it was a sad day for the literary world.

I've yet to read anything by him, but I plan to once I am done with my list. (Catcher in the Rye is going on my overflow list.)

Sexual Frustration and the Helpless Woman

I just finished the play, 'A View from the Bridge' by Arthur Miller, and it is good enough to post to this literary blog. I'm not sure if it's a 'Classic,' as Penguin might not have publication rights on it, but its themes of sexual frustration and helpless women, though not the main point of the play, dovetail nicely on the characters in Anna Karenina, and I'd like to write about it. Both also explore characters determining their own downfall through unjust actions; these fates are not supposed to be surprising to us, but to force us to live out bad choices to the dirty end.

I originally saw the first act performed by a Carrol Gardens theater groupe at the Brooklyn Museum a few months ago, and just found a copy to read the full play. It didn't run long when it debuted in 1956, but recently it's been revitalized, that time as a mini opera, which I wasn't the hugest fan of.

Brooklyn's Red Hook neighborhood, in this 1940's setting, is a dominantly Italian neighborhood, very working class, and as Miller's narrator says of the main character Eddie Carbone, a home to simple people who work hard, make a paycheck, come home to dinner, and reach little beyond the joys of mere existence. But oh, can their lives be complicated.

Eddie lives with his wife and his wife's niece Katherine, who he overtly covets. He is a grown man who has a thing for his barely-post-pubescent adoptive niece, who he raised like a daughter, and can't handle her going out into the world, getting a job, and meeting boys. We see his wife sense this and become upset; we see Katherine sense this and get confused; and we see Katherine's suitor, the illegal Italian immigrant Rodolpho, who is living in their house.

What pains me is seeing Katherine struggle with her feelings of daughterly love for Eddie, too often choosing be ignorant of his inappropriate feelings and refusing to be the person in the house who takes charge of them. SPOILER: As we approach the final scene, she still hasn't moved out of the imploding household, doesn't try to tell Eddie to stop trying to break her and Rodolpho up. As a privileged, post-modern 21st century woman this is the most frustrating thing in the world to see.

Anna Karenina inspires much of the same feelings for me: Why can't Anna just go be with her man? Why doesn't she dash off into the night with her son, forsaking meaningless things like social status and money in favor of true love? Why do they let asshole men like Eddie and Aleksander Karenin rule their lives?

Well, first, because these stories were written by men to explore how the male characters handle and react to complicated love situations. But secondly, because being a woman really did limit these women's ability to determine their lives, whether within a relationship or monetarily. They didn't have the social mobility to stave off completely on their own, or at least didn't believe that they did. And this makes me sad.

Sorry RaeAnn that it took me so long to post something. Can't wait to read more of everyone's progress.

les miserables (part i)

So, I am about halfway through Les Miserables.. (page 555/1220.. I would say I'm rounding but I'm not--that's for real! haha). I just finished with the story of Jean Valjean, and I've moved onto the story of Marius. "Finish" might be a little misleading because I'm not sure if Jean Valjean and Cosette show up again later (I sure hope so!) but I will see eventually (hopefully in another week).

Gah! What to say..
I was rather worried about being able to wade through the 1k+ pages of story. Granted, I LOVE long books, but I've never read something so long (I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the longest book I've read was the seventh Harry Potter, which doesn't really count). I know it's a classic, but it seems to me logically somewhere along the way it should come to a lull in the story and be hard to get through. So far, I haven't come to that point.

(A note: I always read the introductions to these as well).
In the introduction, the length was touched on in so much as he (Norman Denny, also the translator) spoke about passages that have nothing to do with the actual storyline, but are there simply to provide background (for instance, the recounting of the Battle of Waterloo had no effect on the story what-so-ever, except for the small exchange at the end of it). I have found these wanderings of subject not cumbersome, but rather interesting. It provides a depth to the characters and story that is hard to come by. Plus, Hugo's way of presenting, describing, and weaving them into the storyline is genius. They never seem useless.. Each time I come upon one I wonder "where the hell is this coming from?" but I've gotten through enough of them that I trust his judgment, and I know for a fact nothing he says is meaningless.

The way he presents his character's thoughts, feelings, and situations are really unusual. Something about the way he does it allows you to feel a keen sympathy and connection with the character that is hard to come by in most stories (and, in more modern works, achieved in a completely different manner). I think all the meanderings of the past lives and connections of all these people are at the backbone to his character development (and what makes it so different from most character development). It flushes out the person for you, leaves nothing to be desired, and makes you feel as if you were there every step of the way during this person's life.

In short, I love this book. I love the writing. I am way more invested in the characters than I thought I would be. I've loved every page of it, though.

Back log - "A" is for Alcott

Well well! Its been quite a while since any of us have posted. Maybe we should make some kind of arrangement so there is continually new material and not just explosions of it on the weekends. We'll see.

I wanted to start posting my thoughts on some of the books I have already read so HERE WE GO!

A) Little Women. watch out - ***SPOILERS*** ahead.

When I started to read this book I checked out from the library a really great edition. It was embedded with lots of small historical details, which helped create the context of the book, and some of the original illustrations. From this edition I learned that Little Women as we know it now is actually two short novels combined, "Little Women" and "Good Wives" and I must say, I liked Little Women much better.

I hadn't ever read this book before (I think I tried to start it in the fourth grade), even though I owned two copies of it, and I hadn't ever watched the movie either, but I had seen enough cultural references to know the basis of the story.

Immediately, I loved Jo and Beth. Amy annoyed me throughout the book, though not terribly until the end. I LOVE the creativity and general moxie that Jo has in the book. When I read these kind of books I always find myself drawn most to the character that is most like me or that I most would like to be and that was definitely Jo for me. She is so adventurous and full of spirit but still such a creative spirit, an artist and writer. However, she always had a soft side, especially for Beth and her mother, which I think makes her more real and much less a caricature, but hey, thats me.

Speaking of characters, I wish their mother, Marmee, had been a bit more developed, just because mothers are awesome, but I don't think it held the story back or anything.

I also loved Beth, I think because she represents a lot of what I wish I was more like - more kind and gentle. I know I can be a bull in a china shop and though I can be very callous and harsh, I hate to hurt people's feelings and I think that is why I fall for sweet characters like Beth. I CRIED when she finally died, even though I knew it was coming. Its funny how much I enjoyed this book even though I knew most of the plot ahead of time.

Amy annoyed me I think because I came in ready to not like her and her selfishness irritated me, though it really was not overbearing or a central part of her character. The way she interacts with Aunt March was wonderful and those kind of developmental milestones, when people start to grow up, and appreciate these finer more delicate points of being an adult, I love to read.

Meg, ahh Meg. Being the oldest I suppose I should have connected with her more but I just always really wanted to her grow a pair like Jo (egg up as Bowen would say) and not care about what other people thought - really I mean, not care about being poor. I imagine being poor sucks, I really don't feel like I can even possibly begin to imagine what its really like. As much as my family has to budget and can't have the nicest things, etc., I didn't really realize this wasn't the average experience until I went to college and was surrounded by Johnson county, Chicago suburb, St. Louis, Minneapolis "my parents give me an allowance and pay for my tuition, car, etc, etc," kids. And as much as there is a huge gap between my parents and their's, I won't pretend I ever had to worry about food like the March girls did in this book. What I liked about the representation of this was that the poverty didn't dominate their lives - and they weren't even the bottom of the totem pole on that. They went out of their way to help people even worse of than them (something we all should do) and still wrote plays, and had fun, and loved each other. Also, there wasn't much jealousy with Laurie as the rich neighbor. Its hard for me to not resent that, as unfair as it is of me, when I know people whose parents bought them a condo or something. However, it wasn't overly idyllic (a little yes) and they still had familial squabbles and such.

However, I am still SUPER PISSED about the ending of this book. What the crap is this I can't marry Jo so I'll just take her sister instead crap?? THATS WEIRD. Maybe it was more acceptable in the times, but Im pretty sure, if someone had been in love with me, couldn't have me, and proposed to Lea instead, there would be more than one hell to pay. Though really, if its ok with all parties involved should I care? Probably not, but it Jo and Amy are so different it seems weird to substitute one for the other and I don't feel like Laurie really "fell" for Amy as a different person as much as just transferred his love, and it was easy, because he loved the family as a whole. The Jo and Professor thing made much more sense, and as much as I wanted her to end up with Laurie, I could deal with it. I also enjoyed Meg and her match though never really got into Meg or Amy as characters. Was this just my preference or were Meg and Amy not as central?

In the end, I LOVED "little women" and didn't like "good wives". I guess I even have issue with the title Good Wives. Is that all you are after you get married? I would imagine my friends who are wives have identities and passions beyond being "a wife" and I sure as hell know I will. Maybe I am talking out of my ass here, as an unmarried person, but I think it sucks and is unhealthy for either partner to be too wrapped up in being "we". I know that being married is a complete paradigm shift in your view and place in the world, but I don't think it means giving up "you". Anyway, those are my thoughts on Little Women at this point. Not sure if I want to read any of the other books in the series yet.