No, I haven't fallen off the face of the earth. However, I've unfortunately been unable to read or blog as much as I'd like. College has unfortunately taken over my life, and I've only been able to read 15 of the 25 books on my to-do list.
But don't despair! I plan to continue my reading, just at a much slower pace.
Anyway, I'm glad that I ended my summer on a high note: Invisible Man was really an incredible book. The opening chapter is some of the greatest literature I've ever read. In addition, had previously read Native Son by Richard Wright for AP Literature class, and I enjoyed the similarities between the two. In both novels (and I highly recommend reading them together), the protagonist is a young black male dealing with the prejudices of society. However, they both deal with their contempt in different ways. The unnamed protagonist of Invisible Man joins the Communist Party in order to better the community he lives in. In Native Son, Bigger Thomas meets members of The Communist Party and lashes out in fear against them. It's no surprise that the former character is easier to sympathize with, and yet he doesn't feel as whole or complex as Bigger is. I suppose it is due in part to the fact that the "invisible man" seems sure of his decisions at all times; whether or not they end up to be the right decisions is a different story, but he is never conflicted. Unfortunately, this leads to some pretty dry inner monologues. Nevertheless, the vivid descriptions of the riots in Harlem are more than enough to make up for the book's shortcomings.
I highly recommend this, and Native Son, to every one of my dear readers. And I'd like to apologize for the fact that I didn't truly reach my goal. However, my summer has been a wonderful one, and I know it's success is due in part to the knowlege I have gained on this literary journey.
Keep on reading!
-- Skylark
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Monday, July 26, 2010
To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf
I suppose the best way to start out this To the Lighthouse post would be to quote a passage directly from the book in question: "He was reading very quickly, as if he were eager to get to the end."
Except in my case, I was eager to get the end because I was desperate to start a new book. As many of you may have realized, it is not humanly possible for me to finish my challenge on time, but I'm still pushing through as best as I can. Unfortunately, I didn't enjoy this book, which made my task even more arduous.
"But Kayla," you ask, "why didn't you like the book? Weren't you excited to finally read a book by the only female author on your list?"
Well, dear reader, to put it simply, there were just too many characters in the first part of the book, entitled "The Window", for me to follow. The moment I would start to understand the idiosyncrasies of Mr. Rayley, for example, Woolf would immediately begin describing what Mr. Ramsay thought of his children. And then when I started to feel sympathetic for young Mr. James, I would be introduced to all 7 of his brother and sisters. The 16 characters in the first section alone left me dizzy with confusion. Not to mention that they later all convene at a dinner party.
Once the first section was over, however, I was able to finally focus on what matters in this story: the relationships. The characters' relationships to each other, and to nature, are more important than any of the dialogue or narration. They are the reason why this book is considered a classic, and why I found the novel even remotely interesting.
For example, the feelings that Mr. Ramsay has for his wife and his children ebb and flow much like the ocean at his doorstep. One minute, all is calm and serene as he muses on his wife's beauty. Then all of a sudden, he hates how she panders to their children, and is angered by her generosity to those less fortunate than them. It is this constant tide of emotions that each character feels for his friends and family that kept me reading.
At any rate, this book is not one that I recommend at the moment. While the relationships kept me from putting the book down in defeat, They aren't enough to persuade me to pick the book up again.
At least, not for a very long time.
Except in my case, I was eager to get the end because I was desperate to start a new book. As many of you may have realized, it is not humanly possible for me to finish my challenge on time, but I'm still pushing through as best as I can. Unfortunately, I didn't enjoy this book, which made my task even more arduous.
"But Kayla," you ask, "why didn't you like the book? Weren't you excited to finally read a book by the only female author on your list?"
Well, dear reader, to put it simply, there were just too many characters in the first part of the book, entitled "The Window", for me to follow. The moment I would start to understand the idiosyncrasies of Mr. Rayley, for example, Woolf would immediately begin describing what Mr. Ramsay thought of his children. And then when I started to feel sympathetic for young Mr. James, I would be introduced to all 7 of his brother and sisters. The 16 characters in the first section alone left me dizzy with confusion. Not to mention that they later all convene at a dinner party.
Once the first section was over, however, I was able to finally focus on what matters in this story: the relationships. The characters' relationships to each other, and to nature, are more important than any of the dialogue or narration. They are the reason why this book is considered a classic, and why I found the novel even remotely interesting.
For example, the feelings that Mr. Ramsay has for his wife and his children ebb and flow much like the ocean at his doorstep. One minute, all is calm and serene as he muses on his wife's beauty. Then all of a sudden, he hates how she panders to their children, and is angered by her generosity to those less fortunate than them. It is this constant tide of emotions that each character feels for his friends and family that kept me reading.
At any rate, this book is not one that I recommend at the moment. While the relationships kept me from putting the book down in defeat, They aren't enough to persuade me to pick the book up again.
At least, not for a very long time.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
1984 by George Orwell
Sorry for the delay in my posting this entry! I've been to a conference this past week, and it's been difficult for me to have a quiet moment to myself, despite the length of the novel. However, I managed to finally finish on the airplane!
While waiting in line to board the plane, a man next to me made a very interesting point. For him, social networking sites were too similar to the telescreens that Big Brother uses to watch over his citizens. In fact, he explained to me that it was the terrifying portrayal of privacy invasion that causes his generation to stay away from Facebook, rather than a fear of technology. He told me that he found Orwell's depiction of the world in 1984 to be accurate.
And he's not the only one to think this way. According to the back cover of my copy, Orwell's message is "timelier than ever" and "no one can deny this novel's… power of its admonitions."
I however, disagree. While I understand the importance of the book to our society, and I do believe that the warnings signs are present in today's society, I don't find very many similarities between Orwell's version of the present and our reality. In fact, I rejoice at the fact our lives are quite the opposite of what Orwell prophesied!
We are certainly more capitalistic than we've ever been. Thanks to blogging and i-reporting, it's impossible to falsify information without people noticing. And the internet has made our general population well informed about the government's activities.
While Oceania may have seemed all to probable in 1949, the thing to notice here is that we have managed to avoid our fate. I enjoyed this book not because of how true to life I find it, but because of how different our life has managed to become. Winston's struggle to maintain who he is in the face of conformity and thoughtcrimes is heartbreaking. Despite his knowledge that no change will occur in his lifetime, he begins the story with an idealistic view of how he can inspire rebellion in future generations. While he may not ultimately succeed in his goal, the reader feels that they might be the ones to break the cycle of whatever horrible situation they may find themselves in.
1984 is certainly a very iconic book, and I think it lives up to its reputation. I highly recommend it as an interesting look on the future from a past perspective.
If that makes any sense.
While waiting in line to board the plane, a man next to me made a very interesting point. For him, social networking sites were too similar to the telescreens that Big Brother uses to watch over his citizens. In fact, he explained to me that it was the terrifying portrayal of privacy invasion that causes his generation to stay away from Facebook, rather than a fear of technology. He told me that he found Orwell's depiction of the world in 1984 to be accurate.
And he's not the only one to think this way. According to the back cover of my copy, Orwell's message is "timelier than ever" and "no one can deny this novel's… power of its admonitions."
I however, disagree. While I understand the importance of the book to our society, and I do believe that the warnings signs are present in today's society, I don't find very many similarities between Orwell's version of the present and our reality. In fact, I rejoice at the fact our lives are quite the opposite of what Orwell prophesied!
We are certainly more capitalistic than we've ever been. Thanks to blogging and i-reporting, it's impossible to falsify information without people noticing. And the internet has made our general population well informed about the government's activities.
While Oceania may have seemed all to probable in 1949, the thing to notice here is that we have managed to avoid our fate. I enjoyed this book not because of how true to life I find it, but because of how different our life has managed to become. Winston's struggle to maintain who he is in the face of conformity and thoughtcrimes is heartbreaking. Despite his knowledge that no change will occur in his lifetime, he begins the story with an idealistic view of how he can inspire rebellion in future generations. While he may not ultimately succeed in his goal, the reader feels that they might be the ones to break the cycle of whatever horrible situation they may find themselves in.
1984 is certainly a very iconic book, and I think it lives up to its reputation. I highly recommend it as an interesting look on the future from a past perspective.
If that makes any sense.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
The Way of All Flesh by Samuel Butler
Well, after the travesty of a novel I read 3 days ago (see: Under the Volcano) I finally have hit the literary jackpot: The Way of All Flesh.
Now, before you start congratulating me on my scholarly victory, I'll admit that it has not became my all-time favorite book. But, I will say that it's probably in my top two books I've read on my journey.
First of all, this story is told by a third-party narrator named Mr. Overton. Previous readers may remember my hatred (found here) of a certain outside narrator named Nick Carraway. However, the difference between Mr. Butler's story and Mr. Fitzgerald's story is that the former never tries to present its narrator as an "unbiased spectator." In fact, Overton is extremely unsatisfied with the Pontifex family (the central characters) as a whole, and he lets the reader know that at every opportunity he can. It is with Overton's passionate commentary that we get a sense of who the Pontifexes really were.
Secondly, the main character, Ernest Pontifex, is extremely likeable and relateable. While the first characteristic isn't a necessary ingredient of a recipe of a good book, the second is an important factor, at least for me. If I can understand a character's situation and circumstances, I am far more likely to actually want to finish it.
More importantly, the book is a good representation of hypocrisy both in family life and in the church. The main character's father, Theobald, is a clergyman with a bizarre sense of parental duty. At the beginning of the novel, Theobald was mentally abused by his father as a youngster, and forced to enter the clergy against his will. You would think that such a horrible childhood would make Theobald re-evaluate how he would treat his children. But no! Theobald is even worse to his kids than his own father was! Not only does he bombards Ernest with accusations of stupidity and selfishness, he requires him to attend parochial school. Talk about deja-vu!
Even though ordained as a Minister, Theobald does not subscribe to his Holy Book's Golden Rule: "as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (Luke 6 v31). In other words, he does not treat people the way he wants to be treated. In fact there is an entire passage in which he and his wife are thrilled that Ernest is stupid: because if he were smarter than them, they would surely hate him.
The book is filled with little moments like that: moments that make you roll your eyes in disbelief at the ridiculousness of the church as it stood in the 1800s. Butler did not try to hide his disappointment with Evangelism. In fact, he waited until after his death to release the novel in order to avoid the outrage that surely accompanied his text. I highly recommend this book to any and all of my readers out there.
Now, before you start congratulating me on my scholarly victory, I'll admit that it has not became my all-time favorite book. But, I will say that it's probably in my top two books I've read on my journey.
First of all, this story is told by a third-party narrator named Mr. Overton. Previous readers may remember my hatred (found here) of a certain outside narrator named Nick Carraway. However, the difference between Mr. Butler's story and Mr. Fitzgerald's story is that the former never tries to present its narrator as an "unbiased spectator." In fact, Overton is extremely unsatisfied with the Pontifex family (the central characters) as a whole, and he lets the reader know that at every opportunity he can. It is with Overton's passionate commentary that we get a sense of who the Pontifexes really were.
Secondly, the main character, Ernest Pontifex, is extremely likeable and relateable. While the first characteristic isn't a necessary ingredient of a recipe of a good book, the second is an important factor, at least for me. If I can understand a character's situation and circumstances, I am far more likely to actually want to finish it.
More importantly, the book is a good representation of hypocrisy both in family life and in the church. The main character's father, Theobald, is a clergyman with a bizarre sense of parental duty. At the beginning of the novel, Theobald was mentally abused by his father as a youngster, and forced to enter the clergy against his will. You would think that such a horrible childhood would make Theobald re-evaluate how he would treat his children. But no! Theobald is even worse to his kids than his own father was! Not only does he bombards Ernest with accusations of stupidity and selfishness, he requires him to attend parochial school. Talk about deja-vu!
Even though ordained as a Minister, Theobald does not subscribe to his Holy Book's Golden Rule: "as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (Luke 6 v31). In other words, he does not treat people the way he wants to be treated. In fact there is an entire passage in which he and his wife are thrilled that Ernest is stupid: because if he were smarter than them, they would surely hate him.
The book is filled with little moments like that: moments that make you roll your eyes in disbelief at the ridiculousness of the church as it stood in the 1800s. Butler did not try to hide his disappointment with Evangelism. In fact, he waited until after his death to release the novel in order to avoid the outrage that surely accompanied his text. I highly recommend this book to any and all of my readers out there.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Under the Volcano by Malcolm Lowry
I didn't like this book. In fact, I really, really hated it. And what's worse is that I can't place where my hatred is coming from! Nothing seems overtly wrong with this novel; it's not particularly long, nor is it difficult to read. I just couldn't connect with story, and I feel like it's my fault.
Now that I think about it, I think maybe I'm too young to appreciate the complexities of the characters. Consul Geoffrey Firmin, the protagonist of the novel, is an alcoholic who pushes away those who are closest to him. And yet, despite his horrible treatment of his ex-wife and brother, they adore him unconditionally! They literally follow him into the heart of a jungle (an obvious symbol for the depression he's spiraling into) and eventually end up groping through the darkness, while clinging to their last hope of human decency.
Oh, and did I mention that this whole novel takes place on The Day of the Dead? Yeah, that's not foreshadowing at all.
While Under the Volcano is considered a semi-autobiographical novel (with Lowry taking the backseat role of one of Consul Firmin's friends), critics also say that Lowry was inspired by Ulysses by James Joyce. And I definitely found some similarities. Both novels took place during the course of a single day. Both used the stream-of-conciousness technique of storytelling. But, like one amazon.com reviewer said, "[Lowry] aped all of Joyce's worst qualities without recreating any of Joyce's flair for wordcraft."
Hopefully my next book will be a little better.
Now that I think about it, I think maybe I'm too young to appreciate the complexities of the characters. Consul Geoffrey Firmin, the protagonist of the novel, is an alcoholic who pushes away those who are closest to him. And yet, despite his horrible treatment of his ex-wife and brother, they adore him unconditionally! They literally follow him into the heart of a jungle (an obvious symbol for the depression he's spiraling into) and eventually end up groping through the darkness, while clinging to their last hope of human decency.
Oh, and did I mention that this whole novel takes place on The Day of the Dead? Yeah, that's not foreshadowing at all.
While Under the Volcano is considered a semi-autobiographical novel (with Lowry taking the backseat role of one of Consul Firmin's friends), critics also say that Lowry was inspired by Ulysses by James Joyce. And I definitely found some similarities. Both novels took place during the course of a single day. Both used the stream-of-conciousness technique of storytelling. But, like one amazon.com reviewer said, "[Lowry] aped all of Joyce's worst qualities without recreating any of Joyce's flair for wordcraft."
Hopefully my next book will be a little better.
Monday, July 5, 2010
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
Happy 6th of July everybody! I hope everyone enjoyed their Independence Day celebrations. I spent my holiday on the beach… with my laptop… reading a Grapes of Wrath ebook. Fun Stuff. At any rate, I managed to finish right before the fireworks started!
This book came at an extremely appropriate time, as I have been recently interested in the migrations to the west in the 1800s. Those trips were obviously extremely dangerous and traveler-unfriendly (ever heard about the Donner Party? Yikes) due to the unknown wilderness ahead of them.
By the 1930's, the time period in which The Grapes of Wrath is set, much was known about the West. The route was well-traveled, and thanks to cars, the trip was much faster.
Of course, Steinbeck has his main characters, The Joads, face a different set of problems. Instead of battling the elements, the Joads battle deceitful "corporate farmers" who pay intolerable wages. Their struggle to make it to the promised land (and then, ultimately, to survive) is heartbreaking and poignant.
The 3rd and 4th chapter of the book begins with a verbose description of a land turtle struggling to make it across the road. In the passage, the turtle, while constantly badgered by passing vehicles and humans, is determined to make it to his final destination. While the passage in question can be read here, what matters is that the turtle is later seen wandering off into the horizon, hopeful of success. To me, this turtle is an excellent foreshadowing of the trouble and hardships the Joads' face on their own journey. Just as Tom Joad watches the turtle with a sense of wonder, the reader is amazed at the pain and perseverance one family can go through.
I thought the novel was an excellent history of the times these Dust Bowlers lived in. Unlike Sons and Lovers, this one did have a nice story-arc. However, I was expecting it to be a little longer. I felt that the book spent too much time on the journey, and too little time on the hardships in California.
Next up: Under the Volcano, ie. the only book on the list that no one in my family had heard of!
This book came at an extremely appropriate time, as I have been recently interested in the migrations to the west in the 1800s. Those trips were obviously extremely dangerous and traveler-unfriendly (ever heard about the Donner Party? Yikes) due to the unknown wilderness ahead of them.
By the 1930's, the time period in which The Grapes of Wrath is set, much was known about the West. The route was well-traveled, and thanks to cars, the trip was much faster.
Of course, Steinbeck has his main characters, The Joads, face a different set of problems. Instead of battling the elements, the Joads battle deceitful "corporate farmers" who pay intolerable wages. Their struggle to make it to the promised land (and then, ultimately, to survive) is heartbreaking and poignant.
The 3rd and 4th chapter of the book begins with a verbose description of a land turtle struggling to make it across the road. In the passage, the turtle, while constantly badgered by passing vehicles and humans, is determined to make it to his final destination. While the passage in question can be read here, what matters is that the turtle is later seen wandering off into the horizon, hopeful of success. To me, this turtle is an excellent foreshadowing of the trouble and hardships the Joads' face on their own journey. Just as Tom Joad watches the turtle with a sense of wonder, the reader is amazed at the pain and perseverance one family can go through.
I thought the novel was an excellent history of the times these Dust Bowlers lived in. Unlike Sons and Lovers, this one did have a nice story-arc. However, I was expecting it to be a little longer. I felt that the book spent too much time on the journey, and too little time on the hardships in California.
Next up: Under the Volcano, ie. the only book on the list that no one in my family had heard of!
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Sons and Lovers by D.H. Lawrence
* a note from the blogger *
Woohoo! One month into the challenge and I have 10 books checked off my list! Hopefully, if I keep up this pace, I'll be in good shape for August :)
* end of note *
When I was younger, my favorite series in the world was Anne of Green Gables. This was partly because I related to the lively young orphan who was full of wonder and curiosity about the world. But mostly, I loved Anne because the series seemed less like a novel, and more like a biography. Yes, her life had ups and downs, but there was no overlying story-arc or climax. The work was character-driven rather than plot-driven, and that was what I loved most of all.
Now, maybe it's because I've gotten older, but the character-driven Sons and Lovers just didn't do it for me. The entire time I was waiting for all of the rising action to go somewhere. I kept waiting for the exposition to make way for the conflict. And by the time I finally had created in my mind the illusion of a plot structure, the book was already over. I had already spent two days begging Mr. Lawrence to show me what I was supposed to get out of his work.
Alas, Mr. Lawrence didn't answer my prayers. What he did give me, however, was a slew of three-dimensional characters with emotional-attachment issues. Seriously -- all of the characters had trouble loving one another. The mother, Gertrude, wavers between disdain for her newborn son Paul and teary-eyed passion. When Paul grows up, he fluctuates between knowing that Miriam is the only woman he would marry, to hating her for understanding him so well. His older brother, William, describes his feelings for his new fiancée as such: "When I'm away from her I don't care for her a bit. I shouldn't care if I never saw her again. But, then, when I'm with her in the evenings I am awfully fond of her."
All of these emotional problems stem from the horrible marriage of Gertrude and Walter Morel. Walter comes home drunk from the mines every night and yells at his wife and kids. Surprisingly, this leads to everyone in his family hating his guts (one of his children prays that he dies in a mining explosion). While I felt for the plight of his family, they never actively tried to change his behavior, which bothered me.
At any rate, Sons and Lovers is not a book I particularly recommend for those who aren't hardcore D.H. Lawrence fans. For those who are, this book was apparently slightly autobiographical, so you might enjoy it more.
Only 15 books left!
Woohoo! One month into the challenge and I have 10 books checked off my list! Hopefully, if I keep up this pace, I'll be in good shape for August :)
* end of note *
When I was younger, my favorite series in the world was Anne of Green Gables. This was partly because I related to the lively young orphan who was full of wonder and curiosity about the world. But mostly, I loved Anne because the series seemed less like a novel, and more like a biography. Yes, her life had ups and downs, but there was no overlying story-arc or climax. The work was character-driven rather than plot-driven, and that was what I loved most of all.
Now, maybe it's because I've gotten older, but the character-driven Sons and Lovers just didn't do it for me. The entire time I was waiting for all of the rising action to go somewhere. I kept waiting for the exposition to make way for the conflict. And by the time I finally had created in my mind the illusion of a plot structure, the book was already over. I had already spent two days begging Mr. Lawrence to show me what I was supposed to get out of his work.
Alas, Mr. Lawrence didn't answer my prayers. What he did give me, however, was a slew of three-dimensional characters with emotional-attachment issues. Seriously -- all of the characters had trouble loving one another. The mother, Gertrude, wavers between disdain for her newborn son Paul and teary-eyed passion. When Paul grows up, he fluctuates between knowing that Miriam is the only woman he would marry, to hating her for understanding him so well. His older brother, William, describes his feelings for his new fiancée as such: "When I'm away from her I don't care for her a bit. I shouldn't care if I never saw her again. But, then, when I'm with her in the evenings I am awfully fond of her."
All of these emotional problems stem from the horrible marriage of Gertrude and Walter Morel. Walter comes home drunk from the mines every night and yells at his wife and kids. Surprisingly, this leads to everyone in his family hating his guts (one of his children prays that he dies in a mining explosion). While I felt for the plight of his family, they never actively tried to change his behavior, which bothered me.
At any rate, Sons and Lovers is not a book I particularly recommend for those who aren't hardcore D.H. Lawrence fans. For those who are, this book was apparently slightly autobiographical, so you might enjoy it more.
Only 15 books left!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
