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.