Eclectic Indulgence... classic literature reviews

Review: The Island of Dr. Moreau by H.G. Wells

2012-01-24T13:15:00.000-05:00

First book “review” of 2012 – it’s been a spell (reading old books makes me want to use old lingo) since I finished this one, so my memory is already getting hazy. I decided to take another trek down the old science fiction route, since it was short and very different from ‘The Tale of Genji’ which I was reading concurrently.

It seems as though the most popular novels by Herbert George (H.G.) Wells were during the beginning of his career. Of these, I have read all the popular ones (in bold).

• The Time Machine (1895)
• The Wonderful Visit (1895)
• The Island of Doctor Moreau (1896)
• The Wheels of Chance (1896)
• The Invisible Man (1897)
• The War of the Worlds (1898)

This may mean that I’m done with my Wells’ experience for some time, similar to my proclamation of being done reading the most popular works of Jack London. I’m thinking that from an old science fiction perspective, I’m going to delve more into Jules Verne, whom I think it a much better writer/storyteller than Wells (both are referred to as a ‘Father of Science Fiction’).

*Summary Spoilers Only*

The Island of Doctor Moreau (TIODM) was an account of an 11 month and four day habitation on an unknown island close to Hawaii by Edward Prendicks. The story begins with the sinking of the ship “Lady Vain”, and the pick-up of Prendicks aboard his schooner by another merchant ship. This ship is transporting animals (leopards, apes, etc) to the unknown island. Aboard is a strange man with a black face – who the captain rages against. He refuses to transport what he calls “the ugly devil”, feeling that something is not right about this man. Prendicks is not allowed to return to ship or continue onto the island (a man named Montgomery is very hesitant on inviting him), so he is cast out to see on his schooner. Fearful of death, eventually Montgomery concedes and Prendicks is brought to the island.

He finds out that there is a doctor who was banished from England, performing experiments on the island. In addition, there are numerous strange creatures lurking in the dark and we get the feeling that there is something very suspicious about the doctor and the inhabitants of the island.

*End of Summary Spoilers*

According to Wikipedia, this book was written in response to some controversial thoughts on vivisection in Great Britain at the time:

“When the novel was written in 1896, there was much discussion in Europe about degeneration and animal vivisection. Interest groups were formed to address the issue: the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection was formed two years after the publication of the novel."

I’m also going to quote Wikipedia in reference to themes, which it proclaims are “pain and cruelty, moral responsibility, human identity, and human interference with nature.” I could not agree more with this. There is a lot of talk by Dr. Moreau about how to get rid of pain and why it’s important in the type of work he is doing. The animals he is operating on, however, are very afraid of pain after going under the knife. Moreau attempts to convince Prendicks against cruelty in the pursuit of science.

Moral responsibility and human interference with nature are still important topics in society today, and I would argue the movements for the former probably peaked (at least in North America) during the hippy 60-70’s and movements against the latter have become stronger over time and will probably continue as we get further into the 21st century. Both topics are fairly straightforward in reference to vivisection at the hands of Dr. Moreau.

There were a few moral points which I believed were made against drinking, and in one case the drink lead to multiple deaths. Also, there was a strong slant in this work towards the teachings of Christianity – that men’s morals are kept in check by religion – something I would disagree with as a general rule.

Without giving it all away, the re-integration into society by Prendicks was the most interesting part of the novel. The experience jaded him and he had a hard time with seeing the beast in people, converting him to a recluse.

This book was an interesting read, but there was nothing in it that made you think too hard. The writing was average and while I would rather read a work of science fiction from over 100 years ago than one written within the 21st century, this was one of those books that you shouldn’t feel guilty for not having read… but a decent book if you’re looking for something light which still contains important themes.

2011 Classic Literature Year in Review

2011-12-21T08:00:00.003-05:00

This isn't me. I'm a boy.

Twenty-eleven is nearly in the books (pun intended), so it's time for my annual Year in Review post. This year, my goal of reading two books a month is not going to happen. This goal was only really reached last year, but I was hoping to extend it to two years running. Initially, I figured my failure this year had to do with my reading of some huge tombs like War and Peace and currently, The Tale of Genji... but as I glance down the list I see quite a few short ones as well... so I'm not going to use this as an excuse. I'm not even going to use a 'busy life' as an excuse, because that has been pretty constant... but I know that a large amount of personal change and growth has been the culprit - and I am fine with this. I would rather have books enrich my life, than be my life.

I finished 18 books so far this year, and I'm going to attempt to get through one more in the next week and a half. I actually have 9 days off in a row (only took 2 vacation days) and so far for Christmas, I think I only have one day or so accounted for. I may actually be able to get a fair about of reading in.

Anyway, here is this years list:

Aeschylus. The Oresteia
Buck, Pearl S. The Good Earth
Capote, Truman. In Cold Blood
Confucius. The Analects of Confucius
His Holiness the Dalai Lama. How To See Yourself As You Really Are
Defoe, Daniel. Robinson Crusoe
Foot, David K. Boom, Bust and Echo
Gibran, Kahlil. The Prophet
Homer. The Iliad
Homer. The Odyssey
James, Henry. Washington Square
London, Jack. The Call of the Wild
London, Jack. The Sea-Wolf
London, Jack. White Fang
Steinbeck, John. Tortilla Flat
Tolstoy, Leo. War and Peace
Vonnegut, Kurt. Jailbird
Wells, H.G. The Time Machine

This list makes me smile looking back, because it reflects a few changes in my thinking this year. It was really bothering me that some of the books we were reading for book club were not atop my list of books that I really wanted to read. I had hoped to read Capote and Buck and James (all new authors to me), but I continually felt as if my time in this life was short and I should probably start to read some of the older works that really set the foundation of literature. So we changed the book club strategy and now I have read a lot more of the ancient Greeks. Throw in the finishing of a more modern epic, War and Peace, and I really felt like I was realigning my book reading priorities.

There are also a couple of more spiritual books that I read in the spring after some personal things in my life, and the books really stand out above. The works by the Dalai Lama and Khalil Gibran are there... although Confucius was read by the book club at a later date.

There are also a few books that I should have read in childhood by Jack London and H.G. Wells, that I finally got around to. All were popular books in North America about a hundred years ago.

And finally, there are a couple of random works thrown in this year like Vonnegut and Steinbeck... the former always providing me with comic relief and the latter generally providing me with constant pleasure (though, not in this case).

Biggest Disappointment of 2011: Tortilla Flat
I'm going to say that Steinbeck disappointed me for the first time since reading 'Cannery Row', and I while I can still remember a lot of the plot... I didn't really enjoy the book. There was meaning, but the whole experience did not resonate well with me.

Most Difficult to Read in 2011: How To See Yourself As You Really Are
I'm sure that most people in the book club will say Confucius here, but I had a difficult time with this book by the Dalai Lama because I was expecting it to be a little more simplistic and less technical. I had to read it very slowly to get what I wanted to get out of it. It wasn't an easy read, but I was glad to have plugged through because there were a lot of useful ideas on how to perceive yourself and the world around you.

Best Book of 2011: War and Peace
This is such an easy choice that I don't even have to consult the list. War and Peace cracked my top 5 all-time, because it just had everything in it with little to no fat at all. I never would have believed that I would have been sad when the book ended, not for the characters, but simply due to the fact that there was no more story left. A truly beautiful, haunting and enlightening read. Honerable Mentions: The Sea-Wolf by Jack London and The Iliad by Homer.
New Authors Discovered/Explored in 2011: Aeschylus, Buck, Capote, Confucius, Defoe, Gibran, Homer, James, London, Tolstoy

Author I wish To Read More Of in 2012: Tolstoy, Gibran... and anything from Ancient Greece.

Review: The Sea-Wolf by Jack London

2011-12-20T16:52:00.000-05:00

After reading both “A Call of the Wild” and “White Fang”, I had all but written off Jack London. To me, London was an adventure writer who wrote compelling stories with strong themes surrounding human and animal nature. However, there was little that would lead me to classify the works as major forms of classic literature, and I was admittedly surprised to see ‘A Call of the Wild’ on the top 100 of all-time Modern Library list. As I picked up “The Sea-Wolf”, I was expecting a similar tale to the previous two and I had a similar expectation of quality. I was completely wrong, and pleasantly surprised. The “Sea-Wolf” was thrilling and thought provoking, and it’s listing as one of the 100 Greatest Books Ever Written is something I could actually fathom. Of the three Jack London books, this was by far my favourite.

Right from the opening chapter, I realized that my preconceived notions about this book would be wrong. I assume that, like the previous two works, “The Sea-Wolf” would take place from the perspective of a wolf in Alaska or the Yukon during the Gold Rush. I even figured that the wolf would spend time on the sea, which would have been consistent with the other works as well. In this case, the book is named after the captain of the whaling ship “The Ghost”, named Wolf Larsen.

**MINOR SPOILERS BEGIN**

The story begins with Humphrey Van Weyden, a bookish 35 year old man, who finds himself floating in the ocean off the shore of California after the ferry he’s travelling on hits another vessel in the middle of a heavy fog. He is picked up by the crew of the Ghost, a small whaling ship, and put to work as a cabin boy - the lowest rank on the vessel. It’s here that Humphrey (often called ‘Hump’), earns his keep and as Wolf puts it – learns to stand on his own two feet. It’s been years since Hump did not live off someone else in his intellectual pursuits, and he is finally utilizing his body to put food in his own stomach.

Much of the book chronicles the lives of two men, Wolf Larsen and Humphrey Van Weyden, whose lives become inextricably linked on the Ghost. Wolf Larsen is known as a brute of a man, and all of his crew wants to kill him. His strong intellectual and superhuman physical skills make this task nearly impossible, and he is able to stay steps ahead of his crew on the boat. Punishments levied on the crew vary from minor injuries to vindictive murder, and even the introduction to the Ghost and Wolf Larsen begins with the death of the first mate.

Despite this cold lack of humanism, Wolf Larsen is also somewhat of an intellectual. He is constantly reading all subjects and meditating on life theories. And while Hump gets punished for some of his inadequacies, Wolf befriends him and the relationship provides Wolf with the closest thing he has ever had to a friend and alleviates some feelings of loneliness. Despite this, Wolf is still a very crude man and shows no remorse when killing. He believes that the fact that one really lives when they are angry or fearful of death, and he seems to actually enjoy being hated and hunted.

Eventually, a woman (Maud) is picked up from a small ship in the middle of a storm. Both Wolf and Hump start to fall in love with her, and it’s at this point that Humphrey truly begins to see the necessity of leaving the ship and taking Maud to safety. Maud is not a fragile woman, and much credit is given to her effect on Humphrey, and his final transformation into a man.

**END OF MINOR SPOILERS**

I won’t get into the rest of the plot, but I will say that I thought the book would end without Larsen and I was very upset at this. In fact, the very minute when we lost sight of him I started to lose interest in the work. The character was so unique and so interesting that you just wanted to see what would happen next, or hear through his lips the way he was perceiving the world. It’s through him that London explores the nature of man and the animal in man, and it’s through him that Humphrey learns what it is like to be a man – something that he previously thought was through the sole pursuit of knowledge.

Some of the themes discussed include the theory of immorality, the concept of living and man’s reactions to the world as a product of either internal/external factors or the spirit/soul. The dialogue made this work very special, not unlike in a strong Hemingway novel (though very different in form). It is really difficult to talk of the dialogue and do it justice, but I have wrote down a few of the quotations that made strong impressions on me. Perhaps they will convince you to pick up this book and judge its merits for yourself.

QUOTATIONS:

“We want to live and move, though we have no reason to, because it happens that it is the nature of life to live and move, to want to live and move. If it were not for this, life would be dead. It is because of this life that is in you that you dream of your immortality. The life that is in you is alive and wants to go on being alive for ever.” Ch5

“The earth is as full of brutality as the sea is full of motion. And some men are made sick by the one, and some by the other.” Ch6

“Why, if there is anything in supply and demand, life is the cheapest thing in the world. There is only so much water, so much earth, so much air; but the life that is demanding to be born is limitless. Nature is a spendthrift. Look at the fish and their millions of eggs. For that matter, look at you and me. In our loins are the possibilities of millions of lives. Could we but find time and opportunity and utilize the last bit and every bit of the unborn life that is in us, we could become the fathers of nations and populate continents. Life? Bah! It has no value. Of cheap things it is the cheapest. Everywhere it goes begging. Nature spills it out with a lavish hand. Where there is room for one life, she sows a thousand lives, and its life eats life till the strongest and most piggish life is left.” Ch6

“Of course life is valueless, except to itself. And I can tell you that my life is pretty valuable just now—to myself. It is beyond price, which you will acknowledge is a terrific overrating, but which I cannot help, for it is the life that is in me that makes the rating.” Ch7

“No man makes opportunity. All the great men ever did was to know it when it came to them. The Corsican knew. I have dreamed as greatly as the Corsican. I should have known the opportunity, but it never came. The thorns sprung up and choked me.” Ch10

“And he has never philosophized on life,” I added.

[cont]“No,” Wolf Larsen answered, with an indescribable air of sadness. “And he is all the happier for leaving life alone. He is too busy living it to think about it. My mistake was in ever opening the books.” Ch10

“He had opened up for me the world of the real, of which I had known practically nothing and from which I had always shrunk. I had learned to look more closely at life as it was lived, to recognize that there were such things as facts in the world, to emerge from the realm of mind and idea and to place certain values on the concrete and objective phases of existence.” Ch17

“And after all, delight is the wage for living. Without delight, living is a worthless act. To labour at living and be unpaid is worse than to be dead. He who delights the most lives the most, and your dreams and unrealities are less disturbing to you and more gratifying than are my facts to me.”

[cont] “I often doubt, I often doubt, the worthwhileness of reason. Dreams must be more substantial and satisfying. Emotional delight is more filling and lasting than intellectual delight; and, besides, you pay for your moments of intellectual delight by having the blues. Emotional delight is followed by no more than jaded senses which speedily recuperate. I envy you, I envy you.” Ch24

“The love of man and woman, I had always held, was a sublimated something related to spirit, a spiritual bond that linked and drew their souls together. The bonds of the flesh had little part in my cosmos of love. But I was learning the sweet lesson for myself that the soul transmuted itself, expressed itself, through the flesh; that the sight and sense and touch of the loved one’s hair was as much breath and voice and essence of the spirit as the light that shone from the eyes and the thoughts that fell from the lips.”

[cont] “it is better and finer to love than to be loved, if it makes something in life so worth while that one is not loath to die for it. I forget my own life in the love of another life; and yet, such is the paradox, I never wanted so much to live as right now when I place the least value upon my own life.” Ch27

Book Beginnings | The Sea-Wolf

2011-12-16T11:41:00.000-05:00

It's been quite some time that I have posted a book beginning, mainly because I have been busy. I'm thoroughly enjoying reading this work so I thought I would revisit the beginning of the book. It all starts out like this...

"I scarcely know where to begin, though I sometimes facetiously place the cause of it all to Charley Furuseth’s credit."

What this line says to me is that I'm in for a doozy of a tale, something that I may not even be able to believe or at the very least, something that the narrator can scarcely believe. It also tells me that it all probably starts with a man named Charley... and despite the fact that he is referred to in the book, I don't remember who he is. (My assumption is that he's the reason the main character is on a steamer at the start of the book, or perhaps he's the captain of that steamer).

I think this is an effective opening - simplistic and fairly indicative of old school adventure novels. What do you think?

Review: White Fang by Jack London

2011-11-30T19:00:00.001-05:00

My first introduction to the Jack London classic, ‘White Fang’, was watching the film in my basement living room as a wee young lad. I think it was right around the time movies were coming out on VHS, because it’s possible I converted my previous copy from the old Betamax machine (this transfer occurred at a one to one watching/recording ratio by the way). As children, my brother and I loved the movie – adventure, animals, nature and the superb acting of Ethan Hawke.

As I continue my reminiscing mode I’ve been in for the past couple of months, I’m finding some solace in these young adult classics. The writing of Jack London improves slightly in the telling of this tale in comparison to ‘The Call of the Wild’, but the story has a more commercial feel to it which tends me to feel more strongly about the previous work. Also, when you compare this novel to some of the classics I have been reading, it’s obvious to me that the writing of Jack London is several levels below some of the great writers I have been used to. That said, you have to look at this work as an adventure book with some solid morality lessons for children and some glimmer of deeper meaning for adults.

**SPOILERS BEGIN HERE**

The book, similar to ‘The Call of the Wild’, is through the eyes of wolves. In this case, the book starts out through the eyes of a half wolf-half dog wild animal that takes the lives of a sledding team in the north again during the Gold Rush in the Yukon beginning in the summer of 1898. The wolves are so hungry, that they also take the lives of a human. Eventually, the ‘She-wolf’ mates with another (One Eye) and has a pup named White Fang… the only survivor from a litter of four.

White Fang begins to learn about the world around him and is eventually caught by Indians (along with his mother Kiche), whom he lives with for a number of years and acquires his namesake. It’s here that the author refers to men as Gods and the introduction to this topic is thus, “o his mind this was power unusual, power inconceivable and beyond the natural, power that was godlike.” Then Jack London goes as far as stating that dogs feel as though men are Gods when he states “in fashion distantly resembling the way men look upon the gods they create, so looked White Fang upon the man-animals before him. They were superior creatures, of a verity, gods.” The concept of men being Gods in relation to dogs is definitely a product of the time, but I also think it’s a white American man’s mentality of the time. Of course, I don’t have any other customs to compare it to other than the Inuit, and it has always seemed to me that dogs and men are on a more equal playing field. Either way, the way it’s presented makes me feel a little uneasy because it’s contrary to my own beliefs: “and so it came that White Fang learned that the right to punish was something the gods reserved for themselves and denied to the lesser creatures under them.”

Now, back to the plot. The Indian captor named Grey Beaver, eventually follows the white man into town in an effort to sell his wares. This, of course, is where the American self indulgence of the time comes through: “It was at Fort Yukon that White Fang saw his first white men. As compared with the Indians he had known, they were to him another race of beings, a race of superior gods. “ Doesn’t that make you feel a little sick? I like to believe that we’ve come great lengths in humanity since those days, but I’m not completely sure (in regards to the ‘Indians’ or otherwise). Back to the plot, again. Grey Beaver becomes very wealthy, making a 1000% profit and succumbs to alcoholism (another present by the white man). In poverty due to his addiction, he eventually sells White Fang for booze to Beauty Smith.

It is here that White Fang is abused and begins his dog fighting career… which is ‘successful’ up until he meets his first bull-dog (really, a pit-bull) and is saved from the clutches of death by a connected member in the community and his servant, Scott and Matt, the former of which becomes White Fang’s new master. They debate shooting him after he kills one of their dogs and attacks both men, but eventually Scott trains White Fang by showing him love – something White Fang has never seen. Then White Fang falls in love himself (I feel this is kind of hokey, but perhaps it’s just me). When Scott leaves White Fang doesn’t eat and approaches death, and then Scott reluctantly takes him to California where the dog eventually fits in, saves the family from a wrongly accused murderer escaped from prison and knocks up another dog and becomes a father. All very Disney without the Old Yeller heartache.

**END OF SPOILERS**

White Fang is portrayed as a sympathetic character. Because of his half dog-wolf breeding, he doesn’t fit in with other dogs and is constantly fighting with them. He finds man and obeys, but then he constantly fights against torture and torment until he finally finds someone who loves him. He has the ability to adapt very well to his changing surroundings, but his wolf instincts (as well as his past history) never allow him to fully trust any man other than Scott.

I suppose how you interpret the outcome of this book has a lot to do with the reader’s mindset. An optimist would say that White Fang finally finds love despite all the atrocities. The pessimist may say that with all the evil that man is capable of, perhaps it only makes sense to look out for yourself and confide in a small sample of people that you can trust.

The book is a nice easy read full of adventure, and probably a good one to read to children just entering elementary school or a nice read they can start out with on their own in about middle school. For me, I tried to focus more on the story and it was a relaxing book without too much literary intensity.

Review: The Analects of Confucius

2011-11-19T21:02:00.000-05:00

The Analects of Confucius is a collection of quotations from Confucius and his disciples, from the course of Confucius' life in ancient China from 551BC and 479BC. The name 'Confucius' is actually a Latin translation from K'ung Ch'iu, later named K'ung Fu-tzu (K'ung the Master).

Confucious was a book-keeper in early life and later a philosopher and politician. As a politician of the State of Lu, he served as a Justice Minister under the Duke of Lu. The neighbouring state of Qi thought Lu was becoming too powerful (some think this is evidence that Confucius' principles were working), so they sent 100 good horses and 80 beautiful dancing girls to the Duke of Lu. Here is where it gets hazy for me. After reading the introduction of my translation (translator: Lionel Giles), my impression was that the dancing girls caused Confucius to lose himself to indiscretion, though Wikipedia states that this was only prevalent with the Duke of Lu. One account states that Confucius left from shame and another states he left because of the indiscretions of the Duke. Perhaps I missed something here, so will be interesting to see what the book club thinks.

Confucius beliefs were deeply rooted in the social good (concept of virtue), referred to as 'jen'. He tried to live his life by a code and impart this code on all who wished to learn, and during his wandering years after leaving the government in Lu, are where most of the sayings from this book arise from.

The thing that interests me about ancient Chinese texts (the only other I have read is 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu), is that the language is very structured and almost comes across as mathematical. Despite this, it generally has a fluidity to it, though I must assume that much of this is lost in translation. The translator I read, Lionel Giles, seemed very upset with a prior translation by James Legge, a devout Christian whom he believed committed a disservice to Confucius by translating based on his own Christian bias. The notes in my translation are very negative towards Legge's translation - often freely criticizing the work for giving Westerners an incorrect opinion of Confucius and doing irreparable harm to his legacy.

When reading this work, I find it's more important to try to absorb as much of the quotes as possible and string them together like a popcorn garland on a Christmas tree. You start to understand themes which translate into central views of Confucius. Off the top of my head, he was very focused in leading a virtuous life - with the only way of doing so by self improvement and intrinsic focus. By strengthening personal virtues, you would be able to help your fellow man if you lead a lifestyle congruent to your beliefs. Many of the passages in this work talk about other figures in ancient Chinese society and discuss their characteristics and the way they handle things. If Confucius did not know a figure well, he would state that he could not tell if someone was virtuous or not based on a select sample of events. However, those that he loved and those that he hated, were angelicized or demonized according to Confucius' thoughts towards them (based on their personal actions). Since there are many references, it becomes difficult to follow them with any sense of continuity - though strong translations have explanations in the footnotes in regards to the person being alluded to and the history of the situation being mentioned.

Confucius could also be very sarcastic. I remember one person telling him he would never be famous, and he responded by saying that he would take up 'charioteering' to elicit fame. It was enjoyable to me to see this side of Confucius, and I hope the other translations out there were able to pronounce this quality and do it justice.

Confucius hated ceremony for ceremony's sake. He thought it was wasteful to perform certain funeral rights for the dead, because resources would be better utilized on the living. He seemed content to either adhere or go against the norms, based on his own personal viewpoints on what he considered logical. He was a strong believer in a three year mourning period for filial relations, probably stemming from his own mourning period following the death of his mother at age 23.

The other thing that struck me as a key message was the importance, while acknowledging the difficulty, of practicing what you preach. This theme is intertwined with the concept of virtue and self-improvement and was central to the teachings of Confucius.

The Analects of Confucius is one of those works that should be read slowly, so passages can be digested properly. I found that if I tried to read more than 20 pages during a sit down, I would do the book a disservice. It was tough to get through the work quickly, and I found myself re-reading many passages to dissect their meaning. In some cases, even the translator was unsure of what Confucius was saying and in a few cases, some quotations were thought not to be attributed to either Confucius or his disciples.

All in all, I was glad to read this book - though in truth, I have been very afraid of this review. The book's sayings were loosely tied together in chapters, but truth be told, had very little flow. This is indicative in my notes above as well, I think... but such is the reality given the way these quotations were probably recorded throughout history. I'm glad they made it in some form, and am thankful for what I felt was a solid translation by Giles.

"Thought is the foundation of intelligence."

Review: The Call of the Wild by Jack London

2011-11-14T18:23:00.002-05:00

I have been on a kick recently that involves reading some works that I should have probably read in my youth. Since I’ve been delving a lot into Ancient Greece and China, this kick has provided me with some lighter reading which I can still count towards my classics list.

Despite being Canadian, I don’t generally read a lot of Canadian fiction. There just doesn’t seem to be many classics in this area with the exception of some more modern works, like ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ by Atwood. That said, I have always wanted to read ‘The Call of the Wild’ by Jack London. I knew very little about the work prior to reading the short novel; I was under the assumption that it was about a wolf and set in the middle of the Gold Rush (the latter being the only true assumption).

In 1897, Jack London at the age of 21 joined the Klondike Gold Rush. I was struck by how cheerful everything seemed in ‘The Call of the Wild’, but later learned that London developed scurvy, lost his front four teeth and had constant pain in his hips and legs. I suppose this serves as a reminder that mom is always right about eating green vegetables.

Anyhow, this work was the third published novel by Jack London in 1903, and one of his best known in addition to ‘White Fang’, which was written three years later. ‘The Call of the Wild’ is split into seven chapters and chronicles the life of a dog named ‘Buck’ beginning in the Yukon, Canada in the fall of 1897.

**SPOILERS AFTER THIS PART**
Buck is a charismatic mutt, part Saint Bernard and part Scottish Sheppard, who starts his life off as the pet of a wealthy lawyer before being stolen and transported via ship to the Gold Rush where he is sold to Perrault, a courier for the postal service of the Canadian government. He sees something in Buck that he finds special and teaches him how to be part of a sled team (a dog musher).

Buck does not get along with the lead dog, Spitz, and the two constantly battle until one day Buck kills him. According to the author, this is a learned response from an episode seen aboard the ‘Narwal’, the ship which took Buck to the Gold Rush [see some of my criticism of London’s writing later on in the review]. Buck becomes the lead dog after the death of Spitz, and the team of dogs works more efficiently than ever before and the dogs are driven to exhaustion by the constant trips given to Perrault by the postal service. After the dogs are used up, they’re sold as part of a secondary market – to a man, his wife and her brother – who know nothing about dog sledding.

The dogs continue to suffer and some die in their ‘care’ due to pulling too much weight, lack of rest, lack of food, etc. When Buck refuses to go any more he is beaten until nearly death, and then saved by a man named John Thornton, who is infuriated with the owners. Despite John’s warnings, the group continues to traverse the thinning lake ice in the spring, and the rest of the surviving dogs and the three owners fall through and perish.

Buck finally learns what it’s like to love a human being after having endured so much abuse. There is a series of episodes after Buck heals where he saves John in a bar fight and from drowning in river rapids. Buck also makes John a great deal of money on a wager when he is able to pull a 1000lb sleigh by himself.

Then we get into the reason why this story is called ‘The Call of the Wild’. John and a few friends set-up camp in an unexplored area of Alaska (or the Yukon?), and Buck gets antsy about sitting in one place while the group continues to mine gold in the camp. He runs away periodically to the calling of the wilderness, and hunts his own food and has a great time – like a child in a sandbox. He comes back to camp after a long excursion with hunting a large bull moose, to find a catastrophe at camp before eventually making his way back to the wilderness to join a pack of wolves.

**END OF SPOILERS**

One problem I have with this work (alluded to above) is that Buck is given many human qualities, as if the author really understands what the dog is thinking and feeling at all times. I suppose this could be interpreted as realistic, but I found many instances where I just felt like it was too much of a stretch. I have no doubt that Jack London knew dogs like this much better than I do, but I had the sense that he would make presumptions that were probably not true to further the story. It reminded me a lot of Mark Haddon’s take on an autistic child in ‘The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time’.

The writing style was very fluid and simple, though I did find some parts laughable in their simplicity and general ignorance. For instance, in chapter seven, London calls man ‘the noblest game of all.’ First of all, I don’t know which definition of nobility that London was thinking of, but my guess is that it was “an exalted moral or mental character” and I found this laughable since humans as a general species were so horribly immoral in their treatment towards Buck. Also, the whole concept of a Gold Rush is based on sheer greed and not a morality quest or love of nature.

I enjoyed the book and probably would as a child too. Themes presented included morality, instinct, adventure, necessity, love, death, preparedness, greed and teamwork. If you’re wondering as a parent whether to allow your child to read something like this, like all things, it’s a matter of personal choice. The one caution is that there is a fair amount of violence and death.

Since I enjoyed this work, I think I’ll try another by Jack London – most likely ‘White Fang’. Have you read either one? What did you think?

QUOTES:
“With the aurora borealis flaming coldly overhead, or the stars leaping in the frost dance, and the land numb and frozen under its pall of snow, this song of the huskies might have been the defiance of life, only it was pitched in minor key, with long-drawn wailings and half-sobs, and was more the pleading of life, the articulate travail of existence.’ (CH 3)

“John Thornton was dead. The last tie was broken. Man and the claims of man no longer bound him.” (CH 7)

Review: The Time Machine by H.G. Wells

2011-11-09T17:18:00.000-05:00

I have recently discovered that I really enjoy old science fiction classics. I’m a little upset that my parents didn’t see my fascination with The Hardy Boys mysteries (I should read a few to see how horribly they translate as an adult) and Tolkien fantasy in grade school and turned me on to some science fiction from the likes of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells. I’m sure I’ve stated this in Verne posts prior to this review on “The Time Machine”, but there is something for everyone in these types of novels.

As a child, the adventure present in these works is very appealing and the book provides a completely different perspective on life and our place in the universe which was mind expanding during youth. However, due to a primitive understanding of the universe and how humans function within it, much of the subtleties of this work in particular would have gone over my head.

“The Time Machine” is a short novel by H.G. Wells that details the first created time machine and a professor’s experiment with time travel. As I understand it, the term “time machine” was originally introduced to society through this work. Can you imagine how intriguing it would have been to hear the term for the first time prior to reading the book and prior to humans being aware of what existed on planets like the moon? But I digress.

**SMALL DEGREE OF SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT**

This story was published in serial and reads like it. Each chapter has a very specific point, and as I read I wrote a one line synopsis for each one. The first chapter relates the professor’s initial trial with a model time machine and in the second chapter, the time traveler comes back to join his educated friends for dinner after a long time spent in the future – an event that comprises the whole of a novel through the re-telling of the story.

The professor travels forward in time to the year 802,701AD, where he encounters a very different earth. All the people are 4 feet tall, elegantly dressed and seem to spend all their time in leisure. They are slightly dimwitted, produce no goods and eat only fruit. Conversely, there is a subterranean race which only comes to the surface at night, eats meat and is very resourceful.

The theory postulated by the professor is that at some time, the working class was sent underground because the rich ended up owning all the surface land. Consequently, the surface people consumed and the subterranean produced and this happened for generations. Thus, the surface people devolved (physically and mentally) and Wells’ states the reasons for this quite eloquently: “There is no intelligence where there is no change and no need of change.” Ch10

The evolution of the subterranean people was like most organisms that live in caves. They lose their pigmentation and their eyes become very sensitive to light (I digress here, but after an even longer period most eyes are lost through evolution because they become superfluous). Due to the fact that they continued to produce and think, they became very intelligent and intuitive. Here’s what Wells states about the reasoning behind the evolution of the subterranean world:

“…industry had gradually lost its birthright in the sky. I mean that it had gone deeper and deeper into larger and ever larger underground factories, spending a still-increasing amount of its time therein, till, in the end—! Even now, does not an East-end worker live in such artificial conditions as practically to be cut off from the natural surface of the earth?” Ch5

I also love the fact that Wells’ blasts the functioning of modern society here, still applicable today in most areas of the globe. I have spent probably ¾ of my life indoors... and during this time in the fall/winter season, I no longer see the sun as I drive to and from work in the dark.

The concept of skills is also still practical today. I feel myself as if I have no tangible skills because I am not really producing any products, while people that earn far less than me are working in factories creating items for consumption or use. I have lost a large portion of natural intelligence because I do not need to do things like fix my car, because someone else will do it for me. Of course, I am still doing something... so I am not likely to lose all intelligence altogether. Think of for how many people are striving for a concept of spending their time NOT working but instead in leisure. That’s pretty much the definition of retirement for many people. In addition, this produces an interesting commentary about the trend of society at the time and foreshadows the growing divide between the rich and the poor.

My favourite line comes at the very end of the work, in the epilogue where Wells’ makes his most important and optimistic opinion of mankind when he states:

“And I have by me, for my comfort, two strange white flowers—shriveled now, and brown and flat and brittle—to witness that even when mind and strength had gone, gratitude and a mutual tenderness still lived on in the heart of man.” EPILOGUE

I will not delve into the meaning behind this, because it would ‘take the piss out of the whole thing’ – but even with the horror existent in such a society, there was still present the beauty of humanity. I wonder if the publisher made him change the ending to have an optimistic slant, to sell more books? ;)

Wells’ writing style was very simplistic and I didn’t find myself writing down literary devices used. It was more of a straight forward portrayal of ideas while making a commentary on the society at large and the direction the human race was going. I would recommend this to anyone looking for an easy but mind expanding read – probably a really interesting beach book for those of you who don’t really enjoy popular fiction. And if you have children in grade school, it may be a good idea to slip this book onto their bookshelf or next month, into their Christmas stocking.

Other works I’ve read by Wells:
“The Invisible Man” - read in grade school
“The War of the Worlds” – read between high school and university.

I remember the passion I had for 'The Invisible Man' as a child due to the story (reminds me now slightly of 'Dr. Jekyll and Hyde' which I read afterwards), but my thoughts on 'The War of the Worlds' have not withstood the test of time.

Statistics! Top 5 Viewed Posts

2011-10-27T00:00:00.012-04:00

I've been around on this blog since 2004, which feels like such a long time ago. I could go through all that was happening in the world at that time (which seems customary), but I just don't have the stamina for it. After all these years, I don't think I have ever posted any blogger stats - so I'm going to periodically throw a few of them out there. Instead of giving you a list of a zillion numbers in one go, I figured that I would just take a few minutes and share with you the top five viewed posts. When I look at them, it's hard for me to justify why these are at the top... with the exception of maybe number five as tons of internet searches occur on greatest book lists (I now have this listed as a tab at the top of the blog). Anyway, without further ado, here is the list:

1. Book Beginnings - Tortilla Flat [Nov 26, 2010, 8 comments, 1,509 Pageviews]
2. Review: Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe [Apr 24, 2011, 6 comments, 845 Pageviews]
3. Movie Review: Watership Down [Nov 16, 2010, 3 comments, 660 Pageviews]
4. The House of Mirth - Edith Wharton [Sep 12, 2010, 3 comments, 543 Pageviews]
5. 100 Greatest Books Ever Written (Easton Press) [Aug 19, 2010, 3 comments, 527 Pageviews]

Upon some further reflection, it seems logical that American literature would top the list, as many of the people that read the site are from North America. Other than that, though, I can't quite link all these together. Perhaps it has something to do with where in the interwebs these links have been posted. For some reason, Tortilla Flat as a opening line is destroying the next best post by a wide margin, and has tripled the pageviews of the number 5 post. Of course, the review for Tortilla Flat is nowhere to be found on the list. And to be quite honest, if I would guess which Steinbeck review would be at the top it would not be that one.

What do you think? Do you enjoy hearing about random stats? What is your favourite post?

Review: The Odyssey by Homer

2011-10-26T13:37:00.000-04:00

I learned in school the timing of the disintegration of information learned – to put another way, the flaws of memory. It is one reason why I began this blog – there was something tangible that I could go back on when my memory started failing. As such, I tried to write my reviews right after finishing the work or after a brief time while I waited for my thoughts to congeal (this is such an ugly word, but I like it). All that said, this review is occurring more than a month since reading the Iliad and I’m doing so without my notes, so please bear with me.

Now that the disclaimer is completed, I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about my translation. Chris at Prose has a nice post on Iliad translations for those interested, and I believe most have translated the Odyssey as well. They seem to be a natural tandem for translators – and I appreciate the continuity. Anyway, I read the Robert Fitzgerald translation from 1974. Again, I can only tell you what I like – and I really enjoyed this translation. Christopher at Prose is a bit of a connoisseur and he prefers the Fagles translation, and everyone I have talked to enjoys this translation best – so if you have yet to buy a copy, I suggest you start there. The Fitzgerald translation was fairly fluid, but not as simple as reading Thomson’s translation of The Oresteia. It was extremely poetic and had a similar feel to the Iliad translation.

The Odyssey chronicles Odysseus’ 10 year journey home after the 10 year Trojan War. As a child in middle school, I remember reading an excerpt on the Sirens in one of our literature compilations (the only other works there I remember was the Hobbit chapter ‘Riddles in the Dark’ and Lewis Carol’s nonsensical poem ‘Jabberwocky’). Literature was my worst class in grade 7 (93%), which I find very comical now.

Due to this experience with Homer, I expected similar action scenes to the book on the Sirens. Reading the work, the events with interesting mythical creatures were less in magnitude than I thought they would be. As an adult, I appreciated having my earlier misconceptions shattered and learning about the history of certain characters, words and gods. I had no idea that my concept of ‘Cyclops’ was incorrect. I assumed it was the name of a one-eyed creature, when really it refers to the species. The name of the particular Cyclops in The Odyssey was Polyphemus. I also had no idea that Helen somehow goes back to Menelaus, and I’m still unsure exactly how this happened (Parenthetically, Menelaus seems like a much nicer person in Homer’s work than he is made out to be in Hollywood). I had no idea that Agamemnon died at all on his return home by his wife, and this event is further explained in The Oresteia.

While I believe the Iliad’s main function was to chronicle the feelings and mental tribulations (I would argue this is not just rage) of Akhillieus, I can’t tell you exactly what The Odyssey is about from a literary standpoint. What I can say, is that the novel showed just how vengeful the Greeks were. Odysseus’ “heroic” standoff with his wife’s suitors at the end of the novel showed just how strong honor was in those days – ahead of morality. Some suitors were refused sanctuary, women lovers were hung and even one suitor was dismembered. One of my members of bookclub put it very succinctly when he said this about The Odyssey: “It is a reminder that ancient Greek’s enjoyed eroticism, cannibalism, believed in capricious and blood thirsty gods, war, genocide, plundering, and destruction...”

I’ve touched on the role the Gods play in my post on the Iliad, so I won’t rehash it. While most of the members of my bookclub enjoyed “The Odyssey” more due to the fluidity of the prose and the journey aspect of the work, I much preferred “The Iliad”, which was something I was not at all expected. While the latter was a more difficult read, I felt like I could really get inside of Akhilleus’ head, while Odysseus you saw more through actions. He let his men go first into Ceres’ house when they did not want to go, he let his men be devoured by Skylla, he practiced infidelity (not that most Greeks didn’t), he tortured men and his brash actions lead many men to die at the hands of Polyphemus, the Cyclops. All these events seemed in stark contrast to all other accounts of Odysseus, especially in that of The Odyssey. The one thing most people enjoyed about this work is that he was presented with all his flaws and it was left to the reader to form a judgement. I felt this was the case in both works by Homer; a welcome contrast to the portrayal by Hollywood.

I think it’s worth it to read ‘The Odyssey’, as you’ll be better able to sort through fact and fiction and pick up references that you never knew existed before in the world around you. As I have stated, this read was more fluid than The Iliad, so if you feel like you couldn’t give any more Homer a try after that work, hopefully this post will allow you to reconsider. Also, mix it up between poetry and prose as well as translators to find something you can really relate to.

Have you read ‘The Odyssey’? What did you think?

Review: The Oresteia by Aeschylus

2011-10-26T12:25:00.001-04:00

I’m a little behind in my reviewing at the moment. I finished ‘The Odyssey’ over a month ago, and due to general busyness I have not made it to reviewing it. In this case, it works out okay because the plays in “The Oresteia” occur between Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey from a chronological standpoint.

Many have not heard of “The Oresteia” by Aeschylus, and I must confess to not having known about the work until two events – a mention of the book by a friend when I encountered the plays at a used bookstore I frequent (resulting in purchase) and the reading of Christopher’s many blog posts on the work at Prose.

For those of you whom have never come across these works and are looking for a quick synopsis without spoilers, this is from Wikipedia:

“The Oresteia is a trilogy of Greek tragedies written by Aeschylus which concerns the end of the curse on the House of Atreus. When originally performed it was accompanied by Proteus, a satyr play that would have been performed following the trilogy; it has not survived. The term "Oresteia" originally probably referred to all four plays, but today is generally used to designate only the surviving trilogy.”

Before I get into the core of the review, I wanted to mention that it’s important to look into information about the translator prior to picking up a book. If you don’t have time or energy to do this and have not come across anything, like myself in this case, pick a publisher you trust. I read a lot of books published by The Folio Society and Everyman’s Library (Knopf), and I have had some really great results. Just because a book is expensive (I have a love for some of the old Franklin Library/Easton Press editions), doesn’t mean the translator is the best one. Since Franklin Library stopped publishing some time in the 80’s, the translations which have been published after this decade won’t be accessible in these editions. I find though, that some of the older translations are more true to the original text, as there is not as much of a tendency to dumb things down for readers who don’t want to read ‘tough’ works. My edition of The Oresteia was translated by George Thomson in 1965.

While I’m still on the subject, I want to say that I have no idea how to compare translations, but I know what I enjoy. This translation was very poetic and I found myself marveling at how beautiful the language was. There were times where I re-read or stopped and actually said ‘wow’, before I continued. The plays had a fluidity that was refreshing, and I didn’t get the feeling that I slogged through the work, as is sometimes custom with ancient Greek works.

Before I continue, I should mention that the titles of each of the plays in my edition are as follows: Agamemnon, Choephoroe, Eumenides. I have seen other editions title the second play as “The Libation Bearers”, which I believe is an English translation of the Greek word “Choēphoroi”.

****SMALL SPOILERS FROM HERE****

The first play, Agamemnon, is based on the time period after the Invasion of Troy, but before the Odyssey of Odysseus. King Agamemnon comes home to fan fare after being away for ten years. His wife, Clytemnestra, welcomes him with open arms but is secretly brooding over the fact that he had some part in their daughter’s (Iphigenia) death. Also, he’s obviously been cheating on her over the course of the war with his concubines. Clytemnestra has been unfaithful too, and she solicits help from her lover Aegisthus in planning the death of Agamemnon.

The second play, Choephoroe, deals with Orestes (Agamemnon’s son) and Elektra (Agamemnon’s daughter) planned revenge on their mother (Clytemnestra) and her lover (Aegisthus) for the murder of their husband. They are the ‘Libation Bearers’. Dictionary.com defines libation as “a pouring out of wine or other liquid in honor of a deity”, so perhaps this deals with the fact that both Clytemnestra and Aegisthus are murdered by wish of Apollo.

The third play, Eumenides, deals with the trial of Orestes for the murder of his mother. Pallas (Athena) is the judge and the jury is made up of deceased Greeks and the Erinyes, deites of vengeance. The Erinyes state that if Orestes is not made to die for his crimes, they will bring down pestilence upon all the Greeks, regardless of the wishes of Zeus. After the trial ends in the favor of Orestes (Apollo has spoken on his behalf and the result of the jury is a tied vote), the Erinyes are set upon vengeance but Athena manages to convince them that violence is not the answer and offers them a position with the Gods. At this point there is a little kumbaya moment, which maybe I’ll post later when I get around to uploading the quotes.

The thing that stood out for me about the writing, other than the beautiful poetic nature, was the way thoughts and actions were described. Aeschylus went to great lengths to explain the history through the dialogue of his characters, and their emotions and motives for why they would be committing heinous acts. Then there would be a fade out, and a new scene would begin with dead bodies everywhere. This is very different from the Shakespearean plays like Hamlet and Macbeth that show you the action scenes. I can’t honestly say which I prefer, but the way the action is glossed over is counter to Homer’s stance – which was to show the audience all the gore directly.

I’m very glad I was able to get around to reading these plays, and I suggest that anyone who is into the ancient Greeks, gives these plays a read. They were extremely poetic (for those of you daunted by the Greeks: short and easy to read too) and filled in one of the gaps between the Trojan war and Odysseus’ journey home. I hope to read the Aenid by Virgil as well, to read firsthand the manufacture and unraveling of the infamous Trojan horse in the city of Troy.

Review: The Iliad by Homer

2011-09-18T13:02:00.001-04:00

It's been a long time now since I read 'The Iliad', so it's finally time to write a review. Initially, I wanted to let the story sink in to see how it aged in my mind. Eventually, I found that I was just getting a little bored of doing reviews and it didn't seem to fit into my schedule. But I find that the time taken to write these reviews is worth it in the end, because I can tell where my head space was looking back through the course of my life. If I re-read any of the classics that I love, will I still feel the same way about them years later? I have heard that many who loved 'The Catcher in the Rye' when they were adolescents, don't feel the same connection to Holden as they did when they first read the novel. (Parenthetically, I've read it three times now, and I feel just as strongly about it now that I did then). But I digress.

Most books I read, I have very little to no understanding of the journey that is laid before me. With the Iliad, I have seen many films and heard many stories about the Trojan War, so I had many pictures in my head as I started my journey. I felt I knew the purpose of the work and where it was going to take me, but I was completely wrong.

I started reading a prose translation, and I was fairly disappointed by it. It wasn't until about book 6 (of 24) that I began reading a poetry translation which I found to be infinitely better. The structure of the lines was much easier to follow, but the Robert Fitzgerald translation seemed more true to me - very poetic and beautiful verse - the way that people died stuck out to me. It was always something like 'and then death shrouded their eyes' or something of that ilk. There was no confusion that war is an ugly thing - no overly dramatic indulgence in the beauty of death, but there was a gentle poetry about it that sticks out in my head.

We all know about the story that detail the lives of the Archanians (Agamemnon, Menelaus, Odysseus, Ajax, etc) and their war with the Trojans (Hector, Paris, et all), and the beauty of Helen leading to the inciting event of the war. With all my prior knowledge from various non-direct accounts of 'The Iliad', I had a pre-conception of what the novel was supposed to be about. It was all SUPPOSED to be about the Trojan war, the struggle for power brought on by a king, the direct familial repercussions of men being lost in battle, the glory and fate of Achilles, the interaction between Gods and men, etc. I suppose it is all of that, but after reading the work I felt deeply that the purpose of the novel was to show the mental and emotional struggle of Achilles.

Let me lay the foundation of why I believe this to be the case. First off, there is NO TROJAN HORSE in the book. Seriously. I was completely shocked by this. I thought right up until the last sentence that I was going to see something like "And then they made this horse, hid in it, and then Trojans took the horse into the city it was ransacked and everyone died and so did Achilleus (in the ankle, btw), and so it goes." Not so. There was no horse and no death of Achilleus. I found out that this was written later as a book between 'The Iliad' and 'The Odyssey' called 'The Aenid' by Virgil. I guess now, I have to read that.

So - if there is no horse and there is no death of Achilleus, what is the novel about? Well, you may think that it was a love story because of the whole thing with Helen, but that was so lightly touched upon - like a footnote - that it hardly had any bearing on anything at all. Plus, women seemed to be treated as mere possessions in this work, and not as love interests. Even the Achilleus / Breisis connection was overblown. Achilleus even states that she was his prize slave, not anything more.

So if it's not about the invasion of Troy or the mortality of Achilleus or love, what's it really about? I feel very strongly that it's about the difficulty that Achilleus had with life.

He was born of a mortal man and a goddess, symbolizing to me that he didn't really belong to either class. He had tremendous gifts for fighting and war, and only participated in it because there was nothing else for him to do in life. He didn't want to become a nobleman (he despised nearly all of them, save for maybe Odysseus) and he didn't want to fight. When Patrokles died, he felt he no longer had anything to live for. The one person he loved more than any other was dead, and he cared so little for himself and the world around him, death (and honour) was the only thing he had left to live for. He cared little for death because he knew it would free him.

There was so much dedicated to the mourning of Achilleus, it overshaddowed everything else in the novel. He would not eat until preparations were made for Patrokles body (which required the armor worn by Patrokles to be re-captured from Hector's dead body), he would not resume war until funeral rights were over (both for Patrokles and Hector) and even the return of BresisPatrokles). I'm interested to know what you in the blogosphere think of this theory on the purpose of the book.

To round on this review, the mutations of the story that you have heard through movies and other forms of literature make reading this work imperative to your understanding. The book was a daunting read at times, but the poetry translation was beautiful and I strongly recommend the Robert Fitzgerald translation (I have heard the Robert Graves translation is very good as well). There is definitely one book (Five, I think) that is just an endless roll call of names and histories of people participating in the war. Many think this was added in later and was not the work of Homer at all, though Homer may have never existed anyway... there is very little known about him and I think many assumptions have been made and information misused in 3000 years.

I also want to touch briefly on the Gods. From a purely editorial perspective, some books use Roman versions of names (including those of men - of which Ajax is a good example) and some use the Greek versions of names and some get confused and use both. I would recommend sticking to the Greek, because this is a Greek work... but that seems to be an individual consideration.

The more important point of the Gods is the fact that they are shown to be meddlesome, and flawed. I wasn't expecting them to be so flawed - they were treated as if they were humans that just couldn't die and had extraordinary powers. They had emotions which drove how they reacted to situations, and I wasn't expecting this. I also learned quite a bit about the history of the Greek Gods, and I think I would really enjoy reading something else that explained more about Cronos and his sons, and how the world was split into three parts - the earth/sky, the oceans and the underworld. There was a little bit of trash talking between Zeus and Poseidon, which I enjoyed... and there was also a bit of the bitter man and out of line wife (Zeus and Hera) which I found interesting.

Anyway, I'm completely rambling and this review is more of a hodge podge of my ideas, but I hope you found something in it that will either motivate you to pick up this novel eventually and cause you to question the purpose of the work to determine if you agree that it's about the trials of Achilleus. Above everything else, this is why I feel the work is considered a classic; it shows that humans are still undergoing the same trials and tribulations (this is life, no?) three thousand years later.

Review: War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy

2011-07-02T01:18:00.000-04:00

Reviewing War and Peace is a daunting task I have put off for many months now. I figured it would be smarter to let the book's wisdom digest, though like anything we read, with time it begins to fade. There is no way to encapsulate this work at the best of times, but I will do my best here to tell you what I thought about the novel.

Many feel like 'War and Peace' is going to be a daunting task. It's length is the number one worry, and I would say the second is that the book is in Russian, and many are afraid of being caught up with the character naming conventions. I think the third factor that inhibits people from reading W&P is that they don't know much about the history of the War of 1812 and feel that they won't understand the plot. Let me dissect some of these worries.

The length of the book is deceiving. There is no question that it is long and requires some mental toughness and time to work your way through it. However, with the exception of the second epilogue at the end, it doesn't feel long. In fact, when I was finished with the work I felt like I had lost a part of my family - the book was over and there was no more. I wanted it to be LONGER, so I could continue to follow the characters and learn more about Tolstoy's thoughts. In today's world, it's hard to be able to focus on one book for so long without life getting in the way. Mine definitely did, but I still found I could get back into the book if I put it down for a month and in a way, it was refreshing because I was able to reset my emotions and fall in love with the story again and again. It took me maybe four months or so of reading at a moderate speed. Someone told me that if you read a chapter a day you would finish in a year - the chapters are short though, and I would anticipate that you couldn't read so little of the work if you tried because it becomes encapsulating.

The names in Russian literature can sometimes become a struggle. Some have three names, many are named the same given name, after their fathers. I found this more difficult in other Russian works, and definitely more difficult in 'One Hundred Years of Solitude'. In W&P, the main characters were so well discussed that after a few chapters you had no problem telling them apart. Their mental descriptions were such that it was impossible to not make this distinction easily. I think this is important to note, because sometimes the characters in novels are not 'full' characters and it becomes hard to differentiate them - this was definitely not the case here. There were numerous smaller characters that made appearances, but this didn't distract from the overall book and the ones that were important were very easily to discern as well. Some editions are more true to Russian names (Andrei) and some are anglicized (Andrew), so you can really choose what you prefer. I had two copies of the book, so I was able to choose the one that suited my own personal style.

I read a little bit about the War of 1812 prior to reading W&P, but it really wasn't needed. Tolstoy didn't get as detailed as you would have thought in regards to the numerous amounts of concessions and defeats and various countries participation in the war (in some cases fighting on both sides at different points in history). He touches on specific battles, but tells you everything you need to know about them in a non-detailed way. Due to the sheer length of the work, you wouldn't necessarily expect this but it was the truth. The main battles discussed, that I can remember were 'The Battle of Austerlitz' (1805) and 'The Battle of Borodino' (1812), and of course the eventual occupation of Moscow. You don't really need to do any external research, but as you continue to read W&P you will probably find that you want to do some side research because it's just so interesting.

So what was War and Peace about? The simple answer... life (in Russian leading up to and following the War of 1812).

The book is so complex that it's difficult to summarize. The book is split into various sections detailing what Russian was like for aristocrats in times of Peace, followed by life for the aristocrats and the peasantry in times of War. Many in my bookclub enjoyed the tales of Peace the most, but I found both equally fascinating... and truth be told, I may have enjoyed the war time more.

The book touches on many important subjects, such as personal and spiritual development of the individual, love, the concept on how histories are written, war as a living entity, free will versus determinism, the aristocracy, peasantry, religion, life, death, etc.

*SOME SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT - but not in tremendous detail*

Tolstoy talks much about the flawed ways that histories are written. He discusses the overemphasis on generals and their effect on the war, including letters sent in battles detailing strategy that is already outdated by the time it makes it to the people actually fighting the wars. He talks about writers and historians coming up with a theory and working backwards to fit each circumstance to that theory to serve their own purposes. One of the main dislikes of most of the people in the bookclub was that the second epilogue discussed these points in more detail, which could be considered by some as overkill, as we already knew Tolstoy's opinions on the matter from his interjections throughout the book. These interjections were fascinating and gave better context to the overall work.

One of the most interesting parts of the book dealt with how wars became their own entities; a force that could not be controlled. Tolstoy's view on this was very spiritual and largely against the theory of free will.

Religion was interspersed throughout the novel, but more in a spiritual way instead by way of religious propaganda. By this, I mean that we were not hit over the head with particular religious beliefs, which some English books around the time period were apt to do with Christianity. Tolstoy was very spiritual, but he didn't push anything on to you; he simply allows you to think and feel how you wish.

Tolstoy obviously loved the peasantry over the aristocracy, and this was very present in the work. We mainly see the lives of the aristocracy throughout the book, and especially at the beginning. As we get more into the war, we get glimpses of the lives of the peasants but nothing in tremendous detail. We experience more through the eyes of the aristocracy, and I believe he paints a very balanced view.

For those of you who enjoy good love stories with intrigue, passion and heartache - you will find what you are looking for in W&P. Everyone seemed to fall in love with Natasha, who was a free spirit until later on in the novels and was full of life. Sofia seemed to get a hard rap, as her love was more enduring and less fickle, but due to caste reasons she never seemed to get the love she deserved. Mary ended up with her beau, but she went through many struggles with men, including her father, who treated her very poorly.

*END OF SPOILERS*

Tolstoy treats life and death both very seriously, and one cannot help but think about his/her own life in the grand scheme of things. Have we lived? Do we understand the world in which we live and are we at peace with it? Are we afraid of death or are we afraid of life? All these questions are brought to the forefront of the readers mind.

The prose of this work was beautiful - particularly around the self reflection and growth of others. The metaphors were strong, and it was evident to me that Tolstoy knew much about various subjects in life (such as the lives of bees, as one example), which we learned about as the story drew on. I wrote down many quotations, and hopefully I will make it back to them all one day because that in itself would be rewarding. The style, in general, had a beautiful flow to it and was not as thick as you would believe. The book was very easy to read, and at the same time very deep and rewarding.

I know I have not done this book justice with this review; I believe the task is a very daunting one. But I hope that I implore you all to read War and Peace if you have not yet already. More than half of our book club found this book to be in their top five of books they had ever read, with quite a few naming it the BEST book they had ever read. Sometimes we must throw our caution into the wind, in order to grow.

Our Bookclub is the Greatest Ever

2011-06-29T23:39:00.000-04:00

Our bookclub is the greatest in the history of the world.

I will take the Pepsi Challenge against any other bookclub and I guarantee ours is the best. I am biased, but I still believe.

We have a diverse group of people that are amongst the most passionate fans of literature that I have ever met. Everyone is unique, from diverse backgrounds and experiences, but the passion for the literature is universal.

We have a list of books that each person votes on - if any of the 12 members doesn't want to read the book, we remove it from the list. As tastes change, we revisit this list and modify accordingly. It has come to our collective attention that the books we chose by this democratic election process is flawed, and that is because none of us seems to trust our own opinions. The decision tonight was to change the list to books we SHOULD read, not necessarily the books we WANT to read. Here is the collective theory behind this:

We recently read War and Peace - a daunting effort that most of us were completely afraid of. As it turns out, a majority of members that were present at tonight's meeting felt like this was the best or among the best books we have ever read. Most of us were afraid of the undertaking and would not have read the book without the bookclub - the collective force that seems to drive us to undertake challenging reading tasks that we may not have had the courage to take on by ourselves.

We want more of these challenges. We want to start at the beginning and see how collective works have shaped history and other works of literature down the line.

The problem with this is, there are no lists that we want to follow exactly. Also, none of us really want the responsibility of choosing the works on this list because each of our ways of thinking are flawed. But if we don't use someone else's list, and we don't want to vote on books... someone has to choose the list. I cannot believe I was volunteered to do so, but this list now rests on my shoulders. A daunting task, and certainly not one that anyone can do correctly. Still, why not just do our best and see what happens? If it's not perfect, at least it can be a good starting point.

This list will not be written in stone and instead will evolve as we do. But we'll try to start at the start. We will remove the Bible and the Koran and other religious works but keep daunting reads by the ancient Greeks and even that of Hitler. What bookclub do you know that would not be averse to reading something like Mein Kampf? This will surely be difficult, but we hope it will be rewarding, teach us valuable lessons and enrich our lives.

For those of you in the blogosphere, you're welcome to read along with us and see how you do. There are no rules, this is not a set challenge with guidelines, but feel free to do as you will.

For those of the members of the bookclub that were not present at this meeting, please feel free to email me with any concerns or contribute to our facebook page.

I'm more concerned with getting the list right up until 1900, so don't focus too much on works after this point. This list will evolve. It is not perfect.

The list: http://eclectic-indulgence.blogspot.com/p/to-be-read-tbr-list.html

Review: Jailbird by Kurt Vonnegut

2011-06-18T10:55:00.003-04:00

This is my fourth romp through the pages of Vonnegut. A guilty pleasure, I am learning. There are some that go to the beach and they bring their ragged trade paperbacks of Dan Brown, Ian Fleming, Michael Connolly and so on... for that semi-mindless pleasure read. Vonnegut represents something not completely dissimilar to me. Vonnegut books are crammed with quirkiness and obscure anecdotes and while most stories to me are enjoyable, I doubt that many ideas span the length of time and definitely do not compare to the generally well-known classics that I am accustomed to digesting. His books, with a quirky intelligence, provide a semblance of value in their cynical nature.

As per normal custom, I knew nothing about this book when I bought it. What really intrigued me about this edition I found in Kitchener was that there was a stamp that said 'Parkwood Hospital' in the front and back end pieces. My brain got a chuckle out of this because I envisioned this book being in a mental institution. I thought Vonnegut would be happy about this. I was happy about this. I just shattered my thoughts on this premise though, because I found out it is just another hospital in St. Joes London. Now all I can wonder is who took the book from there and sold it in Kitchener... or what rounds it made before it wound up on a shelf in my little condo. The one thing that makes me happy about this still, is that a hospital thought to stock their shelves with Vonnegut instead of some more useless drivel. I wonder who had a hand in this or if they just found it lying around somewhere from a patient or visitor that left it sitting somewhere. No point to this tirade of mine. Tangent over. So it goes.

The book was about a man named Walter F. Starbuck who was put in jail after his 'role' in Watergate in the 70's. You will learn nothing about Watergate from this book - just so you know. It is about the life of Walter F. Starbuck. And now I begin with the **SPOILERS** part of the review - though I will not go into tremendous detail.

Vonnegut cynicism is in full view. The media and papers publish nothing but crap. There is a good part about magazines and how even the magazine 'People' really doesn't talk about people at all (Page Ref: 158). It's just drivel. Agreed. The book talks a lot about big business, through the lens of the RAMJAC corporation who owns 19% of the world's business interests. It is run by a woman who nobody knows, who turns out to be a bag lady who roams the streets of New York City. Walter F. Starbuck once had a relationship with this woman. He finds this out later. This bag lady is probably the richest person in the world.

The concept of her corporation was to make the world better - though all it really did was make a lot of money. In the end, she tries to give it back to the people which just means the government gets it and hires a bunch of lawyers to sell the pieces to other corporations. Very bleak and slightly Darwinian of Mr. Vonnegut. I can't say I disagree that this would be exactly what would happen.

The infamous Science Fiction writer, Kilgore Trout makes another appearance, as he always does in the works of Vonnegut. He is thrown in there as a trademark. While Wikipedia states he is vital to the story, this is a falsehood probably made up by a VP (everyone is a VP in this book - which makes me laugh in reference to the banks or other similarly structured companies I have worked in) in RAMJAC in order to stir up interest in the work, which they inevitably own.

I mix up the story with my review because to prove a point. Vonnegut does this. He mixes up actual fact with fiction (on purpose, of course) - which shows the lens in which he views the world. It is cynical, but intelligent. It is humorous, but rooted in morals. And it's something that I would read on a beach instead of the latest crime thriller. Deeper than shallow, lighter than heavy.

[This doesn't really fit anywhere, but there was a great part about Einstein undergoing an audit by accountants when he made it up to heaven because the auditors insisted that he must believe that life is great before they let him in. They stated that there were so many opportunities he could have taken advantage in life to make him richer - and thus make him more successful. My brain laughed at this. Hard.]

=============
QUOTATIONS:
=============
' "Jesus may have said that," I told Larkin, "but it is so unlike most of what else He said that I have to conclude that He was slightly crazy that day." ' 38

"every successful government is of necessity a Ponzi scheme. It accepts enormous loans that can never be repaid." 51 (Parenthetically, this struck a chord with me when I first read the concept here)

"The tragedy of the planet was that its scientists found ways to extract time from topsoil and the oceans and the atmosphere - to heat their homes and power their speedboats and fertilize their crops with it; to eat it; to make clothes out of it; and so on. They served time at every meal, fed it to household pets, just to demonstrate how rich and clever they were. They allowed great gobbets of it to putrefy to oblivion in their overflowing garbage cans." 56 (I assume he is talking about oil here - love the implied metaphor)

"The economy is a thoughtless weather system - and nothing more." 231

"Frank invented a new sort of cash register for the McDonald's Hamburgers Division. It was getting harder all the time to find employees who understood numbers well, so Frank took the numbers off the keys of the cash register and substituted pictures of hamburgers and milkshakes and French fries and Coca-Colas and so on." 232

"We are here for no purpose, unless we can invent one." 236

Book snobbery or intelligence? Maybe a bit of both?

2011-06-11T11:04:00.001-04:00

I recently agreed to a deal with one of the members of my book club to delve into a book we haven't read that we felt the other person should read. I chose "The Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger for her and she chose "The Shining" for me, by Stephen King.

Today, I began my adventure into Stephen King. I sat down on my comfy couch with nothing going on at all except for the book. Television was off. Music was off. Phone was off. Complete silence. Let's really get submersed into this one and give it a fair shot. After the first few sentences, I already wanted to give up. Thankfully, there was a quote by Edgar Allan Poe before I begun. Very good. But, on to 'The Shining' by Stephen King...

Poor dialogue. Short sentences creating false suspense. Listen. Learn. Grow. Be.

I kind of felt like laughing at the work because I felt it was written for someone who didn't actually read books. Kind of like training wheels on a bicycle. I know this sounds sort of elitist, but this is how I felt. I promised myself I would at least get through the first chapter, and I did.

But I learned some valuable lessons:

Obvious one - I don't like Stephen King.
The way I read is different now. Years of reading the classics have maybe not taught me what good literature is (though, I have some ideas here), but it has definitely taught me what it is not. As a child, I read Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton and loved it. I explored. I imagined. I generally felt some sort of growth. I would hypothesize that if I were to read the book again, I may laugh as I did with my Stephen King experience today.

I battled myself in my thought process here. Am I a book snob? Could this actually be construed as a good thing? I suppose that the answer to these questions, like all of life, is strongly based on perception.

Is a gourmet food critic a snob? What about someone who likes the symphony and not Britney Spears? I suppose that the answer to these questions, like all of life, is strongly based on perception.

I wonder if any of you have gone through your lives reading, not noticing that you're subconsciously evolving your pallet (see how I stuck with that metaphor? :) to literature until some inciting event teaches you - wow, I have really grown here. Would love to hear some stories.

LATE DISCLAIMER: I don't apologize for my views on this work and Stephen King's writing style, but I do apologize if you really enjoy his work and this post offends you. Different strokes for different folks, and we should all be accepting of this.

Review: How To See Yourself as You Really Are | HH, The Dalai Lama

2011-06-08T22:34:00.000-04:00

First of all, I want to say that I was introduced to the Dalai Lama and his teachings a couple of years ago when I saw him give a speech on 'happiness' in Toronto. I was moved to such an extent that I ended up crying - not a thing I can ever remember doing in public preceding this event.

I saw him again in the last year or so, when he was talking about 'world peace' and I wasn't as moved as before - but I went in with high expectations. He is evidently aging, though he still has such a powerful personality and his mind is very deep and clear. He talks a lot about the interconnectedness of all and how important it is to show people compassion.

A lot of these sentiments are echoed in 'How to See Yourself as You Really Are.' For instance, he says this about compassion:

"You have a responsibility to help them (closest friends) possess happiness and to help free them from suffering, develop great love and great compassion." 219

This book is more about core Buddhist principles (this is what I would think of them as) and not really a self-help book in the 'traditional Western' respect. It was very different from the other book I read by him, called "The Art of Happiness at Work," in the sense that it was more about explaining a theory then directly speaking to you, from what I recall.

This book details a few key principles that I could discern:
1. People want happiness, not suffering.

2. Lust and hatred are rooted in ignorance. The key to solving this is knowledge, partially obtained through meditation.

3. Focusing on physical emptiness through meditation.
4. It's important to liberate yourself from a cyclic existence (happiness, followed by sadness, followed by happiness, etc).

5. All things do not inherently exist. And even though you may thing of something as 'my mind' or 'my body', they are not you. The "I" that is you, is not your mind and body. However, without the mind and body you would not exist so whatever "I" is, it is dependent on the mind and body.

6. To reduce lust, focus on breaking things into tangible components - since they do not inherently exist as you see them. When you are lusting after a woman, for example, simply focus on her eye balls, her sinews, her muscles, her veins, etc and you can disassociate from a feeling of lust.

7. The concept of the impermanence of our lives.

There is much about these musings in the book, as well as some helpful tips to learn how to meditate and what to do if you are having trouble - especially if you have a hard time focusing on one thing ("If your mind is scattered, it is quite powerless" 88) or you are too calm and you can't focus.

'How to See Yourself As You Really Are' is a self help book, but one of a different kind. It does not say things like 'go explore a new place to gain perspective' or 'put yourself in someone elses' shoes. It simply speaks of the interconnectedness of the world, how to see objects as they exist (their function, not based on materialism) and how to ultimately help people and contribute positively to society.

It was very difficult for me to get through it because it came across as very mathematical (like when I read 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu), but as I write this review I realize all that I actually learned. I'm glad I read it, but I wouldn't recommend it UNLESS you were able to get past the mathematical nature and had a really quiet place where you could digest the meaning over time. To meditate, perhaps.

As I final thought, I would strongly recommend listening to some of his lectures on topics that interest you. Also, seeing him in person may elicit a very strong response - and it's important to let that feeling pass through you. It's possible that both these experiences will really help you to understand the true nature of a compassionate and knowledgeable individual.

In Praise of Reading and Fiction

2011-06-06T15:49:00.000-04:00

I don't usually post anything outside of the beginning lines of a novel, some of the intriguing vocabulary of a work or a review itself, but I felt like I should make a post on this, an article written by Mario Vargas Llosa, the 2010 Nobel Prize winner in the Literature field.

He wrote a very compelling article on "In Praise of Reading and Fiction" and states the importance of the genre both to individuals and the societal collective. I wanted to share the link and some quotes, in case you don't feel like meandering through the 9 pages of text. There is a lot of content about Spain and South America, the former the place of his current habitation and the latter the place of his birth (Peru). He talks about the importance of democracy, the importance of learning from past mistakes and how all

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2010/vargas_llosa-lecture_en.html

Quotes I enjoyed:
"Flaubert taught me that talent is unyielding discipline and long patience. Faulkner, that form – writing and structure – elevates or impoverishes subjects. Martorell, Cervantes, Dickens, Balzac, Tolstoy, Conrad, Thomas Mann, that scope and ambition are as important in a novel as stylistic dexterity and narrative strategy. Sartre, that words are acts, that a novel, a play, or an essay, engaged with the present moment and better options, can change the course of history. Camus and Orwell, that a literature stripped of morality is inhuman, and Malraux that heroism and the epic are as possible in the present as is the time of the Argonauts, the Odyssey, and the Iliad.

If in this address I were to summon all the writers to whom I owe a few things or a great deal, their shadows would plunge us into darkness. They are innumerable. In addition to revealing the secrets of the storytelling craft, they obliged me to explore the bottomless depths of humanity, admire its heroic deeds, and feel horror at its savagery. They were my most obliging friends, the ones who vitalized my calling and in whose books I discovered that there is hope even in the worst of circumstances, that living is worth the effort if only because without life we could not read or imagine stories."

"We would be worse than we are without the good books we have read, more conformist, not as restless, more submissive, and the critical spirit, the engine of progress, would not even exist. Like writing, reading is a protest against the insufficiencies of life. When we look in fiction for what is missing in life, we are saying, with no need to say it or even to know it, that life as it is does not satisfy our thirst for the absolute – the foundation of the human condition – and should be better. We invent fictions in order to live somehow the many lives we would like to lead when we barely have one at our disposal.

Without fictions we would be less aware of the importance of freedom for life to be livable, the hell it turns into when it is trampled underfoot by a tyrant, an ideology, or a religion. Let those who doubt that literature not only submerges us in the dream of beauty and happiness but alerts us to every kind of oppression, ask themselves why all regimes determined to control the behavior of citizens from cradle to grave fear it so much they establish systems of censorship to repress it and keep so wary an eye on independent writers. They do this because they know the risk of allowing the imagination to wander free in books, know how seditious fictions become when the reader compares the freedom that makes them possible and is exercised in them with the obscurantism and fear lying in wait in the real world. Whether they want it or not, know it or not, when they invent stories the writers of tales propagate dissatisfaction, demonstrating that the world is badly made and the life of fantasy richer than the life of our daily routine. This fact, if it takes root in their sensibility and consciousness, makes citizens more difficult to manipulate, less willing to accept the lies of the interrogators and jailers who would like to make them believe that behind bars they lead more secure and better lives."

"the Spanish transition from dictatorship to democracy has been one of the best stories of modern times, an example of how, when good sense and reason prevail and political adversaries set aside sectarianism for the common good, events can occur as marvelous as the ones in novels of magic realism."

"Homeland is not flags, anthems, or apodictic speeches about emblematic heroes, but a handful of places and people that populate our memories and tinge them with melancholy, the warm sensation that no matter where we are, there is a home for us to return to."

"Literature is a false representation of life that nevertheless helps us to understand life better, to orient ourselves in the labyrinth where we are born, pass by, and die."

"fiction is more than an entertainment, more than an intellectual exercise that sharpens one’s sensibility and awakens a critical spirit. It is an absolute necessity so that civilization continues to exist, renewing and preserving in us the best of what is human. "

"a world without literature would be a world without desires or ideals or irreverence, a world of automatons deprived of what makes the human being really human: the capacity to move out of oneself and into another, into others, modeled with the clay of our dreams."

"The lies of literature become truths through us, the readers transformed, infected with longings and, through the fault of fiction, permanently questioning a mediocre reality."

"we have to continue dreaming, reading, and writing, the most effective way we have found to alleviate our mortal condition, to defeat the corrosion of time, and to transform the impossible into possibility."

Review: The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran

2011-05-22T23:25:00.000-04:00

By brief way of introduction, this book contains 26 'poetic essays' by the Lebanese poet, Kahlil Gibran. Wikipedia has a good synopsis, so I'm shamelessly plugging it in here:

The prophet, Al-Mustafa who has lived in the foreign city of Orphalese for 12 years is about to board a ship which will carry him home. He is stopped by a group of people, with whom he discusses many issues of life and the human condition. The book is divided into chapters dealing with love, marriage, children, giving, eating and drinking, work, joy and sorrow, houses, clothes, buying and selling, crime and punishment, laws, freedom, reason and passion, pain, self-knowledge, teaching, friendship, talking, time, good and evil, prayer, pleasure, beauty, religion, and death.

When I started reading this work, I felt incredible compelled by the depth and messages contained within the book. Certain passages spoke to my soul, and despite the short length of the work I found myself continually writing down quotations that made an impression - such an impression that I felt that some of the insight could stick with me throughout the rest of my life and would evolve with my thoughts as I continue on the journey that is life. I envisioned taking this book with me when I travelled so I could reflect upon the passages in hopes of even greater understanding and the evolution of the messages contained within.

That said, some of the passages felt too abstract and did not speak to me as if they were a truth (not THE truth), but rather thoughts intended for their poetry and not for anything contextual. I can only wonder if I would feel this way if I re-read the passages later in life - perhaps they did not penetrate because I was at this time, impenetrable. I doubt this is this case, but one can only guess because one can never escape one's own perspective.

Some quotations that I enjoyed:
"And shall it be said that my eve was in truth my dawn?" 5

"And ever has it been that love knows not its own depth until the hour of separation." 8

"In your aloneness you have watch with our days, and in your wakefulness you have listened to the weeping and the laughter of our sleep." 10

"When love beckons to you, follow him, Though his ways are hard and steep. And when his wings enfold you yield to him, Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you. And when he speaks to you believe in him, Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden." 11

"For even as love crowns you so shall he crucify you. Even as he is for your growth so is he for your pruning. Even as he ascends to your height and caresses your tenderest branches that quiver in the sun, So shall he descend to your roots and shake them in their clinging to the earth. Like sheaves of corn he gathers you unto himself. He threshes you to make you naked. He sifts you to free you from your husks. He grinds you to whiteness. He kneads you until you are pliant; And then he assigns you to his sacred fire, that you may become sacred bread for God's sacred feast." 11-12

"But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure, Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love's threshing-floor, Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears." 12-13

"And think not you can direct the course of love, for love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course." 13

Yeah, that's just a couple of parts of the first 13 pages. I have a ton more quotes and I think they get particularly interesting in the sections on marriage, work, reason & passion and friends. Maybe I will eventually quote them all out, but above gives you a small sample.

Review: The Good Earth by Pearl S. Buck

2011-05-22T16:59:00.001-04:00

The Plot & The Context

The Good Earth is about a rural Chinese family centred around Wang Lung, a local farmer. The book depicts life on a small piece of land, the trials and tribulations of poverty and also of success.

I imagine that in 1931, Westerns knew much less about China than we do today - even those of us (myself included) that are largely ignorant to their way of life and culture of their society. However, in today's age, this book does very little to teach me anything I don't know and the historical backdrop in which the novel is presented is hazy at best.

The novel doesn't delve much into what is happening with wars in China; perhaps this is to keep us as ignorant as the Wang family in such matters. This seems to be the antithesis of the scope of 'War and Peace' - which Tolstoy chronicled to such lengths to show us in macro what was going on in Russia. Buck chronicles the life of Wang family in macro (centred around Lung) but barely skims the surface of the rest of China.

The book reaffirms the importance of a social hierarchy in Chinese culture, as well as familial structure. It discusses at length the existence of concubines, slaves and arranged marriages. It details the struggles of life - which do not get easier as one becomes richer. It discusses poverty, superstition, religion (only lightly), drug use, mental retardation, and infanticide all within the Wang family. The familial scope is vast, but that's really as far as this book goes.

The Title

The land was the most important thing in Wang Lung's life at first, but eventually it became mixed with living a peaceful existence. The only peaceful existence he seemed to have was in poverty - and frankly, being alone in the fields. If Wang Lung would have decided to become a hermit, I'm sure he would have been able to live the peaceful existence that he wanted - each relationship he had seemed to bring out the evil in him, other than the relationship with the land. While he struggled in his life to become wealthy and respected, his very essence and charm escaped him.

The Point

What I take away from this is similar to that of of Voltaire's "Candide" - the secret to life is to self-sustain on a farm and only through life's journey can one figure this out. While Candide came to this conclusion at the end of the novel, Wang Lung had a difficult time focusing on what was really important in his life and instead seemed to just go through life like checking off items on a 'to do' list - things that he thought he needed to do for his family and his family name.

The Prose

There are no memorable quotations, the language is far from beautiful and the prose is only so-so. While this book was the best selling novel in 1931 and 1932 in the United States, I find that it loses something in today's time - dissimilar to many of the classics that I generally read.

The Final Judgement

I don't regret reading this novel, but I must say that I did not get very much out of it. The prose was easy to read, the characters were interesting (it was easy to like O-Lan and dislike 'Wang Lung' for me) and I would wager that I take very little from this book over the course of my life.

Review: Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe

2011-04-24T23:17:00.000-04:00

I've had a few very personal experiences with this book, which I suppose have added additional intrigue and enjoyment for me so I will preface by saying thus.

When I was traveling to the Dominican Republic, I first decided to read this book on the plane. I probably figured that it would be a good book to read in a tropical locale, especially while on an adventure of sorts. So as I get to this particular part where 'God unleashes his furious wrath upon the vessel', all of a sudden there is a jolt in the plane and the wing has what I remember as a 'fireball' on it. All the passengers who were there with me saw it, so I wasn't crazy (at least in reference to this) and it took awhile for us to all calm down. This was mainly due to the fact that the captain didn't let us know what happened right after the event. We sat there for a few minutes wondering if we were going to plunge into the ocean or something and then he finally came on the speaker and let us know that our plane got struck by lightning - which he assured us was quite common (I don't know about this - I think he was bluffing). I never really thought of this before, but I guess I've been technically struck by lightning! Anyways, needless to say that I stopped reading the book... and didn't pick it up again until years later... it's probably been around ten years since that day. Being me, I have always felt a little guilty for not finishing the work. So when it came up for this month's book club selection I was pretty pumped - especially since I would be reading it on my couch and NO WHERE ELSE!

Now it's not really public knowledge (I guess it is now!) but I broke up with my girlfriend recently. Not to dwell on it at all here, but I kind of felt like when Robinson Crusoe got stranded on a desert island... I could feel his isolation a little more. He had to forage for food himself (I've been eating randomly), he probably didn't have impeccable personal hygiene at the time (I let grow a beard and sometimes skipped my morning shower) and he reflected a lot about Providence and listening to the little voice inside you. So all these things had a strong connection with me, despite some annoying aspects of the novel.

For one thing, it annoyed me that my copy had no chapter breaks for 375 pages and it didn't even have any of those fun little ***'s that break things up. When I stopped I just put the bookmark in and walked away, and would usually just read the two pages where I stopped at because I didn't know what paragraph I left off.

The other thing that was annoying was the fact that Robinson Crusoe was very self-centred. He wanted to be the king of his island and felt he deserved that, not wholly because he was there for 28 years or so, but because he was English - it's like an American nowadays thinking that the world revolves around them and their country [not all think this way, but you can't argue that some do]. I guess this was a common perception in England at the time, but it just left a bitter taste in my mouth. Couple that with the fact that he called the natives "blinded ignorant pagans" [264] and also referred to his friend as "this creature" [279]. And did I mention that he named his best native friend "Friday" because he met him on Friday... and introduced himself as "Master." What an asshole - let's be honest. He also said that his God was the "true God" [263] and for someone who is spiritual and open to most religions, this pissed me off. I didn't hate all the bible thumping or references to Christianity but the above really drove me nuts.

In the beginning, it wasn't all about this though. It was about one man who felt he had sinned by not listening to his parents and how he tried to make up for his mistakes to himself and God. And of course, it was about the daily life he underwent with 28 years (mainly alone) on the island. It was a little 'first I did this, then I did this and then I also did this', but I suppose that's the way you would talk about an experience if you had been there, isolated.

He did have some great moments of thought - what I would call quotable nuggets of wisdom - which I really enjoyed. Eventually, I'll post some of them because they really made the book for me. Some of the things I have been wrestling with lately, and feel to be inherently true, Defoe was writing about nearly 300 years ago, and I believe this is why the book has withstood the test of time amongst the literary crowd. So depending on what camp you fall into, the literary camp or the adventure camp (or both), then there's something for everyone in here. I think in that way, it eclipsed 'Treasure Island' - which was more about the plot.

I believe a lot of the time, this book followed a set cause and effect structure which was very matter of fact. The way things seemed to fall in place for Crusoe (the items he received on his island) was very Hollywood to me - wrapped up in a neat package. And then there were obvious things that weren't even referred to... like why he never even FISHED. In the Ocean. Where there are lots of fish!

Anyway, all in all I am glad I read this because it wasn't exactly what I was expecting. I was pleasantly surprised in parts and glaringly disappointed in others, but thankfully the tidbits of wisdom were there and I felt a kinship with the isolated Crusoe, if only because of my personal circumstances.

For those of you who have read this, what did you think?

Book Beginnings | Robinson Crusoe

2011-04-24T22:41:00.001-04:00

"I was born in the year 1632, in the city of York, of a good family, tho' not of that country, my father being a foreigner of Bremen, who settl'd first at Hull."

A very matter of fact beginning to a book which ends up playing out to be very 'matter of fact'. Usually I don't read the entire work before I post the book beginning, so with hindsight here the opening is true to the rest of the novel.

I suppose that this sort of beginning was fairly common in 1719 when the book was written, though I'd love to know your impressions on it. I was fairly happy that this book didn't scream of ye ole English, though the punctuation at first may throw you for a loop.

Review: In Cold Blood by Truman Capote

2011-03-29T22:45:00.000-04:00

Buy In Cold Blood

I must say that I'm a little nervous to do a review on this novel, and not neccessarily due to the fact that the book is a work of non-fiction or that it contains some grusome details of a slaughtered family in Kansas from 1959. I'm also not really fussed about talking about the death penalty or debating it's merits or lack thereof. What I'm most nevous about is that I have never read a book quite like this before. It's generally regarded as a classic, which is what made it suitable for my classics book club, but it really feels like you should not really enjoy a book like this - because you know that you're not reading fiction. The horrific tale is true, and as a reader this is constanty in the back of your mind.

I'm still very unclear with Capote's motives in writing this book, which I think fascinates me more than the subject itself. Did he simply feel like he needed to tell this story in more detail? Did he feel he had to make a specific commentary about the legal system or capital punishment? Did he want to display a piece of the human condition - or human condition gone wrong? Perhaps the answer is all of these things and perhaps it is none. I would love to hear from others here that have an opinion on the matter.

I think the book describes the legal system from a very Kafka-esque perspective. Tons of red tape, tons of hype and maybe not as much substance - or substance that gets muddled with emotions and beaurocracy. I doubt this was new material at the time, but it really felt like Capote needed to get this topic off his chest.

Capital Punishment is discussed - specifically targetted towards the legal system and jury members. Are those that put men to death in the court room guilty themselves of murder? Is there value on a criminal life due solely to the fact that they're human? Are these rights waived when such a heinous crime is committed?

There are interesting parts about sexual perversion and how it may be linked to people lacking empathy towards other humans or valuing life at all. That said, there were no questions asked about how you classify perversion and that was largely due to a discussion on rape and pedophilia [two subjects generally regarded as black & white] - homosexuality was never breached in this novel. Capote, a homosexual, never discussed this but according to sources listed on Wikipedia, the relationship between Capote and one of the killers (Perry Smith) was brought into question.

I think Capote tries to get you to empathize with the characters - specifically Smith. He comes from a broken background, but is very intelligent and very sensitive. It felt like a glimmer of Lolita and Nabokov's desire to mess with your mind in regards to Humbert Humbert - but didn't go nearly as far. I think the aim was probably to teach the reader that characters in books are unlike characters in real life - they have good qualities and bad and you have to take both together when establishing a viewpoint.

What makes people committ such horrific acts? I'm not sure we know a ton more now than we did 50 years ago, but Capote tries to use pyschology findings to state that these men cannot be painted simply with a broad brush that says 'evil' or 'good' when there are a lot of factors that take into consideration the psychology of the individual. There is no question that what was done is 100% wrong, and in trying to identify the why, Capote is not saying that their actions can be excused. He is simply saying that the reader must make choices to determine where they deem Smith and Hickock to lie on the evil/good continuum.

As a piece of literature, I wasn't that impressed. Capote's language is good, but not strong and I never found myself wanting to write anything down that I read (though I doubt this was the point). That said, I didn't get as much out of this book as I would have liked. I understand that it was a landmark novel in it's time, and I'm not sure the concept (a non-fictional novel) has ever been captured better, but I still found that I longed to finish it and get started on another read. I feel sort of guilty for this - like I'm not honouring the dead as much as I should. Though, I suppose that's fairly indictive how we treat a lot of the dead... and perhaps that's a human mechanism that lets us focus on life.

Book Blogger Hop

2011-03-19T06:48:00.000-04:00

It's been nearly a month since I last posted and I have no good story about where I've been or what I've been up to. The fact that I have been working 60 hour weeks in addition to weekends really has little to do with the fact that I have not made a post in nearly 30 days.

The answer why I have not posted is that "War and Peace", if you haven't heard is a LONG read. And it just so happens that my feelings towards reading this book in conjunction with another is also the topic for the book blogger hop question this week:

"Do you read only one book at a time, or do you have several going at once?"

I really have a hard time reading more than a book at a time. The only way that my mind seems to be okay with this is if one is a work of fiction and the other is a book of non-fiction. Since I rarely pick up my complete 13 volume set of English history, I find that my non-fiction suffers due to the extremeness of my personal reading whims. Other than some business books, I believe the last work of non-fiction I read concurrently was about Pompeii and Herculaneum (fascinating). But I digress.

Due to reading "War and Peace" (WAP) my book club has decided to trounce on with another book concurrently and that is where "In Cold Blood" comes in. Truth be told, I am upset to be stopping WAP for a time since it causes me to lose a bit of continuity (and it's so ridiculously good). My new strategy is to not stop WAP entirely, but read it interspersed with 'In Cold Blood', though I'm not sure I'll have time if I want to make my March 30th deadline. Time will tell.

Anyways, that's where I have been. If you're a new follower from the hop, welcome! Please introduce yourself.

Movie Review: The World According to Garp

2011-02-20T00:00:00.001-05:00

The World According to Garp

What can I say about "The World According to Garp" other than, 'in the world according to Garp, we are all terminal cases.' It's the most haunting last line in all of literature, and after reading the book by John Irving, I felt so touched I decided to start this blog. I just needed to get some emotion out, and this is where I turned. That was November 2004 - it's been a long time.

I started the blog to remember my thoughts on books that I read, because I had a hard time learning that things I read eventually left my head. Ironically, if you asked me what the plot of the book was about before I watched the movie, I would only give you snippets. I remember Ellen James and I remember a horrible scene in a driveway. And I remember the last line. Haunting. It was so powerful, and it lead me to read more John Irving... some, like 'A Prayer for Owen Meany' I fell in love with, while others, such as 'The Fourth Hand' fell short.

Book: "The World According to Garp" by John Irving
Movie: "The World According to Garp"
Book Publication Date: 1978
Movie Production Date: 1982
Read: November 2004
Watched: February 2011
Stars: 4

When this movie began, I felt it was not penetrating me. The time flew by as I watched it, but I did not really feel it at all. I'm not sure if I felt this when reading the novel, but I do remember that the book was like the movie... a lot was packed into the end. After the 1 hour and 30 minute mark, I was hooked, and the last 45 minutes were haunting and emotional.

I must state that the movie did the book justice, and I was really afraid that it would not. The memories of the book came flooding back, and I remember some of the passion I had for the novel I read more than six years ago. That said, the movie will never be what the book was to me... though, it was a good experience and I'm glad I watched it.

I expected a good performance by Robin Williams, though I was expecting him to be 'sillier' - probably a reason I wasn't that excited about giving the movie a try. He was much truer to character than I thought he would be, and I was glad for that. Another thing that surprised me was seeing John Lithgow as the transgender woman. Honestly, I think he stole the performance from Robin Williams. I didn't look it up, but I hope he won something for it. I liked John Lithgow from the moment I saw him as a child in 'Harry and the Hendersons', but he won me over with his performance in '3rd Rock from the Sun', one of very few programs that I have ever been attached to - 99% due to his performances.

Anyway, I am rambling on here and I am probably doing a disservice to the movie with this shoddy review, but I am not a fan of giving away the plot and I think you should always read the literature first. My primary intention in this post is to let you know if the movie does the book justice, and I'm happy to report that in this case, it does.

Would love to know your thoughts.