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.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
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!
Monday, June 28, 2010
Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler
The funny thing about this book is that it seems to be a mash-up of three books I've previously read: Catch-22, Crime and Punishment, and Native Son. And what's more, all of these books (with the exception of Crime and Punishment) are on the Top 25 list!
Considering Catch-22 was the book I just finished reading (my review can be read here), its similarities were the most striking to me. Almost immediately, the main character Rubashov encounters a case of circular-reasoning much like... well, much like every character in Catch-22. That excerpt (which can be read here), although short, is just the beginning of these resemblances. For one, Gletkin, the commanding officer in charge of Rubashov's case, is as conniving and evil as Colonel Cathcart. They both twist the words of their inferiors in order to charge them with crimes they didn't commit. And the inferiors, though once idealistic youngsters, are devoid of hope when faced with their immutable fates.
Crime and Punishment is not only emulated in this novel; it's actually referenced! Ivanov, another interrogating officer, constantly teases Rubashov for being "a Raskolnikov". They spend time discussing not only Raskolnikov's faults (as anyone who has read C & P knows are many), but also why what he did was wrong. During an intriguing monologue, Ivanov claims that Raskolnikov was wrong in killing the old woman, not because it was the morally wrong thing to do, but because he killed for his own personal benefit. If, for instance, he "had bumped off the old woman at the command of the Party," then the murder would be justified. Ivanov's statement comes to play later in the story, when they suggest Rubashov wrongly confess to treason for "he good of the party".
The similarities to Native Son are more subtle. Both Bigger Thomas, the main character in Native Son, and Rubashov are ruthless men. They killed innocent people because they thought they had to, and for that they were punished. In both books, the reader can't help but think that perhaps Bigger and Rubashov will be spared the severity of the law. However, she knows that any other ending would be unfaithful to the scenario, and therefore both characters must suffer the deathly consequences.
Perhaps it is because the book felt so familiar that I didn't like it very much. Every twist, every turn in the story seemed uninteresting. I knew how the story would end as soon as I realized which 3 books Darkness at Noon reminded me of. Of course, none of this is the fault of the author. If I had read this book before all the others, I may have found it supremely engaging. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. However, the book is still a good rendition of the Communist Party during the purges, despite Koestler's ommision of specific countries *ahem, Russia* or party leaders *cough cough, Stalin*.
And what's funny is the fact that George Orwell claims he was inspired by this book to write some of the scenes in 1984. So I guess all these great books feed into one another! More on that when I finally read 1984 ;)
Until next time!
Considering Catch-22 was the book I just finished reading (my review can be read here), its similarities were the most striking to me. Almost immediately, the main character Rubashov encounters a case of circular-reasoning much like... well, much like every character in Catch-22. That excerpt (which can be read here), although short, is just the beginning of these resemblances. For one, Gletkin, the commanding officer in charge of Rubashov's case, is as conniving and evil as Colonel Cathcart. They both twist the words of their inferiors in order to charge them with crimes they didn't commit. And the inferiors, though once idealistic youngsters, are devoid of hope when faced with their immutable fates.
Crime and Punishment is not only emulated in this novel; it's actually referenced! Ivanov, another interrogating officer, constantly teases Rubashov for being "a Raskolnikov". They spend time discussing not only Raskolnikov's faults (as anyone who has read C & P knows are many), but also why what he did was wrong. During an intriguing monologue, Ivanov claims that Raskolnikov was wrong in killing the old woman, not because it was the morally wrong thing to do, but because he killed for his own personal benefit. If, for instance, he "had bumped off the old woman at the command of the Party," then the murder would be justified. Ivanov's statement comes to play later in the story, when they suggest Rubashov wrongly confess to treason for "he good of the party".
The similarities to Native Son are more subtle. Both Bigger Thomas, the main character in Native Son, and Rubashov are ruthless men. They killed innocent people because they thought they had to, and for that they were punished. In both books, the reader can't help but think that perhaps Bigger and Rubashov will be spared the severity of the law. However, she knows that any other ending would be unfaithful to the scenario, and therefore both characters must suffer the deathly consequences.
Perhaps it is because the book felt so familiar that I didn't like it very much. Every twist, every turn in the story seemed uninteresting. I knew how the story would end as soon as I realized which 3 books Darkness at Noon reminded me of. Of course, none of this is the fault of the author. If I had read this book before all the others, I may have found it supremely engaging. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. However, the book is still a good rendition of the Communist Party during the purges, despite Koestler's ommision of specific countries *ahem, Russia* or party leaders *cough cough, Stalin*.
And what's funny is the fact that George Orwell claims he was inspired by this book to write some of the scenes in 1984. So I guess all these great books feed into one another! More on that when I finally read 1984 ;)
Until next time!
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
What can I say? I loved this book. I loved Heller's descriptions of characters. I loved his use of deja-vu to bring across an important point. I loved his hilarious and ridiculous circular reasoning (my favorite "catch-22" can be read here). But most of all, I love Yossarian, one of Catch-22's main character.
No, he's not a perfect man. But really, what man is? Whatever his faults are, he makes up for them with a idealistic view of justice and honor. Despite, or rather because of, the fact everyone thinks he's crazy, Yossarian is perhaps the most sane character in the novel. He is one of the few who confronts his fears, and stands up to the government. Instead of shrinking away from conflict, he welcomes the challenge of defending what he thinks is right. And, on top of all that, he fights fair: despite the intolerable ill-will his superiors have shown him, he refuses to enter in an assassination attempt against them.
But what makes Catch-22 a great read is its portrayal of the idiotic bureaucracy. It's not too hard to believe that there are Generals out there as crazy and malicious as General Peckman. It's enirely plausible that supposedly the bravest men in our country are cowards who risk thousands of innocent lives in order to save face. And I am sure that the men who do fight honorably for our country are killed and then forgotten all too quickly.
Yet despite the tragedy and violence described in this book, Heller's message is hopeful. Sometimes good can triumph over evil, and all can be right with the world. All you have to do is speak out against the horrors, and to stand up for what you believe in.
If only more people in the world were able to stand up for their rights, the world could be a better place.
No, he's not a perfect man. But really, what man is? Whatever his faults are, he makes up for them with a idealistic view of justice and honor. Despite, or rather because of, the fact everyone thinks he's crazy, Yossarian is perhaps the most sane character in the novel. He is one of the few who confronts his fears, and stands up to the government. Instead of shrinking away from conflict, he welcomes the challenge of defending what he thinks is right. And, on top of all that, he fights fair: despite the intolerable ill-will his superiors have shown him, he refuses to enter in an assassination attempt against them.
But what makes Catch-22 a great read is its portrayal of the idiotic bureaucracy. It's not too hard to believe that there are Generals out there as crazy and malicious as General Peckman. It's enirely plausible that supposedly the bravest men in our country are cowards who risk thousands of innocent lives in order to save face. And I am sure that the men who do fight honorably for our country are killed and then forgotten all too quickly.
Yet despite the tragedy and violence described in this book, Heller's message is hopeful. Sometimes good can triumph over evil, and all can be right with the world. All you have to do is speak out against the horrors, and to stand up for what you believe in.
If only more people in the world were able to stand up for their rights, the world could be a better place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
