Silas Marner is the story of a bitter old miser (are there any other kinds of misers?). When he was younger he got screwed over by his best friend and accused of stealing money from the church. Silas left the town and started weaving in another town (this is actually where he became a miser). Silas spends his entire life collecting the money that he makes from weaving. He keeps it in a little box and counts it every night, it's all that gives him any pleasure whatsoever. I kinda picture Silas like Scrooge McDuck swimming through his money in that giant bank thing he had.
Well, as time goes by, and as all stories must have some major plot twist, someone breaks into Silas's house and steals all of his money...imagine that. Well, don't feel too bad...things turn out okay for Silas. Instead of money, a young child makes her way into Silas's house, don't ask, it's a long story. Silas raises little Eppie all by himself and becomes well respected in the town for his ability to raise her as if she was his own without a mother figure, which, apparently is the only acceptable way to raise a child.
We spend the rest of the book observing Silas's change with the introduction of Eppie. It was an enjoyable book, if a little predictable and perhaps, dare I say it, trite. The book is not particular plot driven, it is much more character driven. I don't know that I would reread the book ever, however, it was a good book to read once.
Moral of the Story: Don't be greedy, because you'll probably lose it all and have to find something new to amuse yourself and discover a new purpose.
December 24, 2007
December 04, 2007
Foundation
Foundation is supposedly one of the books that made Isaac Asimov one of the greatest science fiction writers ever. Part of a trilogy, that I think became a tetrology, later moving on to become just a series with some seven or eight books, Foundation begins with Hari Seldon, who is a psychohistorian. Using probability, Seldon discovers that the entire Galatic Empire (which has ruled for some 13,000 years or something like that) will collapse within 500 years leading to 30,000 years of barbarism and disintegration of the human race. To that end, he has created a group of scientists who are creating an Encyclopedia Galactica that will maintain all human knowledge. By doing this, his group of scientists will be able to keep the barbarism from 30,000 to a mere 1000 years. Through his probability research, he is able to determine actions to take that will ensure a certain future for the Empire. Under the guise of creating this encyclopedia, the scientists create The Foundation and manage to talk to Empire to grant them two planet on the (opposite) outskirts of the galaxy...or universe. I can't remember. This is the setup for the rest of the novel, and, I'm guessing, the series.
Fastforward 50 years: The Foundation is at risk of destruction by its neighboring planets. What do we do? Well, we argue you about it for many pages, carefully reviewing both sides of the coin. Finally the time capsule that was created 50 years earlier goes into motion (Hari Seldon created it, knowing this time would come). Hari Seldon explains, via hologram, that what the Foundation is the first of many crises (which would later become called Seldon Crises). Basically, Seldon explains, that there will be multiple crises that will help lead to The Foundation taking over the galaxy and becoming the Second Empire and THAT was why they created it, not to make an Encyclopedia Galactica. Each of these crises will have only one well defined path and that path must be taken in order to achieve, well, domination.
Throughout the rest of the book we are fastforwarding through the infancy of The Foundation as we see what the new crisis is, and how it needs to be resolved. Most of the stories center around new characters, who, in many ways, are the same character with different names. I say this because all of the main characters who learn and figure out how to resolve the crisis have the exact same character traits. They are all observant and quick to pick up what is going on. They are also able to see how their actions will keep the course for The Foundation.
The novel has created a great story arc, that again, I can only guess is continued throughout the entire series. However, each separate story is a little too short to get any real personal investment in the characters. Yes, we have a great interest in the success of The Foundation, but none in the individual characters, and while I think that Asimov created The Foundation as its own character, and the main character, for that matter, we still needt o have an interest in the secondary characters for the novel to be of any interest. The most fascinating of the characters was Salvor Hardin. This is for two reasons. 1) He was the first of The Foundation to discover Seldon's true purpose and how to resolve it. And 2) he has two "stories" about him, so we have enough time to fully get to know him and like him.
It's a good novel, and I have an interest to see that The Foundation was success in it's quest to take over the galaxy after the destruction of the Galatic Empire. The book explores human conditions and human behavior through the eyes of the future, where rather than nations, we fight and show nationalism through planets. It's an interesting look into how we, as humans, will probably not change a whole lot. Of course, it is all speculation, but based on what I know of humans, I can see these things happening...even in a the future.
Moral Of The Story: Human behavior is predictable...even in the future. Hari Seldon proves it...
Fastforward 50 years: The Foundation is at risk of destruction by its neighboring planets. What do we do? Well, we argue you about it for many pages, carefully reviewing both sides of the coin. Finally the time capsule that was created 50 years earlier goes into motion (Hari Seldon created it, knowing this time would come). Hari Seldon explains, via hologram, that what the Foundation is the first of many crises (which would later become called Seldon Crises). Basically, Seldon explains, that there will be multiple crises that will help lead to The Foundation taking over the galaxy and becoming the Second Empire and THAT was why they created it, not to make an Encyclopedia Galactica. Each of these crises will have only one well defined path and that path must be taken in order to achieve, well, domination.
Throughout the rest of the book we are fastforwarding through the infancy of The Foundation as we see what the new crisis is, and how it needs to be resolved. Most of the stories center around new characters, who, in many ways, are the same character with different names. I say this because all of the main characters who learn and figure out how to resolve the crisis have the exact same character traits. They are all observant and quick to pick up what is going on. They are also able to see how their actions will keep the course for The Foundation.
The novel has created a great story arc, that again, I can only guess is continued throughout the entire series. However, each separate story is a little too short to get any real personal investment in the characters. Yes, we have a great interest in the success of The Foundation, but none in the individual characters, and while I think that Asimov created The Foundation as its own character, and the main character, for that matter, we still needt o have an interest in the secondary characters for the novel to be of any interest. The most fascinating of the characters was Salvor Hardin. This is for two reasons. 1) He was the first of The Foundation to discover Seldon's true purpose and how to resolve it. And 2) he has two "stories" about him, so we have enough time to fully get to know him and like him.
It's a good novel, and I have an interest to see that The Foundation was success in it's quest to take over the galaxy after the destruction of the Galatic Empire. The book explores human conditions and human behavior through the eyes of the future, where rather than nations, we fight and show nationalism through planets. It's an interesting look into how we, as humans, will probably not change a whole lot. Of course, it is all speculation, but based on what I know of humans, I can see these things happening...even in a the future.
Moral Of The Story: Human behavior is predictable...even in the future. Hari Seldon proves it...
November 28, 2007
The Cloud Atlas
So here's the thing about Cloud Atlas, it's written in an interesting framework. To summarize one story is impossible, because it is actually 6 different stories (which, for the sake of names, we'll call AB, CD, EF, GH, IJ and K) that have a (very) loose connection. The framework is as such: A - C - E - G - I - K - J - H - F - D - B. That is to say, half of the first story, half of the second, half of the third, half of the fourth, half of the fifth, the sixth, the second half of the fifth and so on back to the first.
Each story explores a different Point of View (henceforth called POV) and a different narrative form. The first tells the story of Adam Ewing through his diary as he journeys (circa 1850, if I remember properly) from Australia to Hawaii. The second is told through the letters of Robert Frobisher to his friend (the full extent of this relationship is rather questionable) Rufus Sixsmith. The third is a "book" about Luisa Ray. The fourth is a movie about Timothy Cavendish, the fifth a historical account of a clone, Sonmi~451 and the final (or sixth) is the verbal telling of Zach'ry. Now the extent of the connection between these six tales is, like I said before, loose. Robert Frobisher comes across the diary of Adam Ewing. Luisa Ray knows Rufus Sixsmith and gets a hold of the letters of Adam Ewing. Timothy Cavendish, a book publisher, is given the book about Luisa Ray to publish. Sonmi~451 comes across the movie of Timothy Cavendish. And Zach'ry gets a hold of a recording of Sonmi~451's historical telling. That's pretty much it.
Most of the main characters, with the exception of Zach'ry, have a comet shaped birthmark in their armpit area. In Zach'ry's tale, the person with the birthmark is Meronym, a woman who visits Zach'ry's tribe (reincarnation perhaps...which would throw this particular reading into a blender). There are occasional other connections between the characters. For instance, Rufus being friends with both Robert and Luisa. Luisa sees the ship that Adam sailed on. But other than that, there really aren't any strong connections between them. The plots are extremely different, ranging from mere survival, to work, to getting out of an invalid's asylum, to bring down a society. The main characters are relatively similar in their personality traits, all striving for a better world and doing it passively.
While I enjoyed the book and found the stories quite interesting (though some more than others), the lack of connections disturbed me. Each story was completely independent of the other and the framework, which doesn't really make sense until the second half of the second story, serves the purpose of being a) creative, b) symbolic, c) a strainer of emotions. The drama is saved for the end, though each one builds up and then we're cut off. Each story essentially ends the same way: each character learns a valuable lesson about life and fighting for the underdog.
Overall the book was enjoyable, and I would even venture to say a great book...of short stories. As a unified novel, aside from the framework, I would disagree. I just think that the lack of overlaying story arch removes it from being a full fledged novel. Would I recommend it? Absolutely! If for no other reason than to explore different POVs and story narrative styles. But I would definitely not be expecting one well constructed story arch...expect six short stories, you'll be good to go.
Moral of the Story: Just because you intermingle the narrative, does not make the story connect.
Each story explores a different Point of View (henceforth called POV) and a different narrative form. The first tells the story of Adam Ewing through his diary as he journeys (circa 1850, if I remember properly) from Australia to Hawaii. The second is told through the letters of Robert Frobisher to his friend (the full extent of this relationship is rather questionable) Rufus Sixsmith. The third is a "book" about Luisa Ray. The fourth is a movie about Timothy Cavendish, the fifth a historical account of a clone, Sonmi~451 and the final (or sixth) is the verbal telling of Zach'ry. Now the extent of the connection between these six tales is, like I said before, loose. Robert Frobisher comes across the diary of Adam Ewing. Luisa Ray knows Rufus Sixsmith and gets a hold of the letters of Adam Ewing. Timothy Cavendish, a book publisher, is given the book about Luisa Ray to publish. Sonmi~451 comes across the movie of Timothy Cavendish. And Zach'ry gets a hold of a recording of Sonmi~451's historical telling. That's pretty much it.
Most of the main characters, with the exception of Zach'ry, have a comet shaped birthmark in their armpit area. In Zach'ry's tale, the person with the birthmark is Meronym, a woman who visits Zach'ry's tribe (reincarnation perhaps...which would throw this particular reading into a blender). There are occasional other connections between the characters. For instance, Rufus being friends with both Robert and Luisa. Luisa sees the ship that Adam sailed on. But other than that, there really aren't any strong connections between them. The plots are extremely different, ranging from mere survival, to work, to getting out of an invalid's asylum, to bring down a society. The main characters are relatively similar in their personality traits, all striving for a better world and doing it passively.
While I enjoyed the book and found the stories quite interesting (though some more than others), the lack of connections disturbed me. Each story was completely independent of the other and the framework, which doesn't really make sense until the second half of the second story, serves the purpose of being a) creative, b) symbolic, c) a strainer of emotions. The drama is saved for the end, though each one builds up and then we're cut off. Each story essentially ends the same way: each character learns a valuable lesson about life and fighting for the underdog.
Overall the book was enjoyable, and I would even venture to say a great book...of short stories. As a unified novel, aside from the framework, I would disagree. I just think that the lack of overlaying story arch removes it from being a full fledged novel. Would I recommend it? Absolutely! If for no other reason than to explore different POVs and story narrative styles. But I would definitely not be expecting one well constructed story arch...expect six short stories, you'll be good to go.
Moral of the Story: Just because you intermingle the narrative, does not make the story connect.
November 12, 2007
Farewell To Arms
I was kind of excited to read this book since I had enjoyed the last two Hemingways as much as I did. Well, I can tell you, For Whom The Bells Toll it wasn't. Farewell to Arms is the semi-autobiographical story of Hemingway and his misogny...ok, so I'm a little cynical. It's actually a story of the love between Henry, an ambulance driver during the war, and Catherine, a nurse.
The book wasn't that bad, I guess. Maybe this is horrible, but I just wasn't that interested in what was going on. I just wasn't. Basically it tells the story of Henry and his experience in war. He gets wounded and ends up, conveniently, in the hospital that Catherine is working. They fall in love and over come all obstacles to be together. Well, not quite as neat as that, but more or less, and isn't that what we expect out of a love story?
Sadly, the farewell to arms is not actually in reference to Hemingway, or Henry, for that matter, losing his arms. I was sort of hoping that this would be the plot, simply because one armed people are funny. But alas, it is a farewell to the arms of war, which isn't quite as fun. Although, I guess that peace is always better than war.
We journey through the relationship between Henry and Catherine, which, surprisingly, is very calm and neither really fight with the other, which is so unrealistic. It's even more surprising because Henry, is as a general rule, such a selfish pig. But, I guess it works because Catherine is so submissive. It's a good relationship. Healthy.
I guess I was more disappointed than anything. I really wanted this to be another For Whome The Bells Toll and it just wasn't. I didn't really have an interest in the characters. Henry was so withdrawn from emotions and everything was just, eh, it happens. I felt as if this book was much more characteristically Hemingway, and it reminded me why I don't like him. I wish I could make all this great insight into the book, I just can't. I just wasn't interested.
I apologize.
Moral Of The Story: Books that have interesting characters that you care about, are much more interesting than books with characters that you're bored with.
The book wasn't that bad, I guess. Maybe this is horrible, but I just wasn't that interested in what was going on. I just wasn't. Basically it tells the story of Henry and his experience in war. He gets wounded and ends up, conveniently, in the hospital that Catherine is working. They fall in love and over come all obstacles to be together. Well, not quite as neat as that, but more or less, and isn't that what we expect out of a love story?
Sadly, the farewell to arms is not actually in reference to Hemingway, or Henry, for that matter, losing his arms. I was sort of hoping that this would be the plot, simply because one armed people are funny. But alas, it is a farewell to the arms of war, which isn't quite as fun. Although, I guess that peace is always better than war.
We journey through the relationship between Henry and Catherine, which, surprisingly, is very calm and neither really fight with the other, which is so unrealistic. It's even more surprising because Henry, is as a general rule, such a selfish pig. But, I guess it works because Catherine is so submissive. It's a good relationship. Healthy.
I guess I was more disappointed than anything. I really wanted this to be another For Whome The Bells Toll and it just wasn't. I didn't really have an interest in the characters. Henry was so withdrawn from emotions and everything was just, eh, it happens. I felt as if this book was much more characteristically Hemingway, and it reminded me why I don't like him. I wish I could make all this great insight into the book, I just can't. I just wasn't interested.
I apologize.
Moral Of The Story: Books that have interesting characters that you care about, are much more interesting than books with characters that you're bored with.
October 23, 2007
Rites of Passage
Rites of Passage was written by William Golding, who is best known for his book "Lord of the Flies". Rites shares many of the same themes as Lord of the Flies - its a story of what happens when a group of people are isolated from societal norms and how they struggle as a group.
The premise of the novel is that Edmund Talbot (interestingly enough, on my recent trip to England, I saw the Talbot estate - they're kind of a big deal) is sailing to Austrialia to begin a job, which has been secured for him by his godfather. His elderly godfather asks that he keeps a journal of the voyage and mail it back to him as it will be of great entertainment to him.
There were several reasons that I liked this book. The first of which is that Golding didn't just write a novel. He actually wrote a journal (Ph, what style of writing is this?). The chapters are misnumbered, Edmund soon realizes that the dates are of no relevance while aboard, and there is a chapter titled "Omega" about halfway through the book, when poor Edmund thinks that he is just about to wrap up his account of the voyage. It sort of reminds me of how my journal looks. The dates are approximate, sometimes when I write, I note the time and location, other times I do not. If I am trying a squeeze into a certain bridesmaid dress on November 9th, I jot down my weight to keep myself motivated. Othertimes things are just sort of random and illogical.
There are a lot of different things that happen in the book, and Edmund soons comes to realize that the social confines that he operates under on a daily basis in the real world, don't mean much while on the ship. He tries to maintain a sense of normalcy and still thinks himself a "true gentleman", however, in light of some incidents between the Captian of the ship and a Parson traveling, Edmund is put to the test. The book gets really interesting about halfway through, as Edmund realizes what really happened to the Parson and is prompted by the other characters to take action.
Like Lord of the Flies, the passengers are left to fend for themselves under social norms that they aren't used to. The characters struggle to maintain a sense of proper society, but at the same time, continously find themselves in challenging situations, all of which is documented by Edmund. The character development is very sneaky - at first I didn't think much of the characters or that they were highly developed, but then as the novel progressed, I realized that the key characters were highly complex individuals with extremely different motivations.
At the end of the novel, Edmund states as a grand conclusion, "With a lack of sleep and too much understanding, I grow a little crazy, I think, like all men at sea who live too close to each other and too close thereby to all that is monstrous under sun and moon"
Moral of the Story: "When going to Austrailia, consider taking a flight"
The premise of the novel is that Edmund Talbot (interestingly enough, on my recent trip to England, I saw the Talbot estate - they're kind of a big deal) is sailing to Austrialia to begin a job, which has been secured for him by his godfather. His elderly godfather asks that he keeps a journal of the voyage and mail it back to him as it will be of great entertainment to him.
There were several reasons that I liked this book. The first of which is that Golding didn't just write a novel. He actually wrote a journal (Ph, what style of writing is this?). The chapters are misnumbered, Edmund soon realizes that the dates are of no relevance while aboard, and there is a chapter titled "Omega" about halfway through the book, when poor Edmund thinks that he is just about to wrap up his account of the voyage. It sort of reminds me of how my journal looks. The dates are approximate, sometimes when I write, I note the time and location, other times I do not. If I am trying a squeeze into a certain bridesmaid dress on November 9th, I jot down my weight to keep myself motivated. Othertimes things are just sort of random and illogical.
There are a lot of different things that happen in the book, and Edmund soons comes to realize that the social confines that he operates under on a daily basis in the real world, don't mean much while on the ship. He tries to maintain a sense of normalcy and still thinks himself a "true gentleman", however, in light of some incidents between the Captian of the ship and a Parson traveling, Edmund is put to the test. The book gets really interesting about halfway through, as Edmund realizes what really happened to the Parson and is prompted by the other characters to take action.
Like Lord of the Flies, the passengers are left to fend for themselves under social norms that they aren't used to. The characters struggle to maintain a sense of proper society, but at the same time, continously find themselves in challenging situations, all of which is documented by Edmund. The character development is very sneaky - at first I didn't think much of the characters or that they were highly developed, but then as the novel progressed, I realized that the key characters were highly complex individuals with extremely different motivations.
At the end of the novel, Edmund states as a grand conclusion, "With a lack of sleep and too much understanding, I grow a little crazy, I think, like all men at sea who live too close to each other and too close thereby to all that is monstrous under sun and moon"
Moral of the Story: "When going to Austrailia, consider taking a flight"
October 10, 2007
The Old Man And The Sea
While the premise of this story sounds exceedingly boring, I have to admit that I actually enjoyed it. A man, going out fishing for however many pages, b to the oring. Really. It was good. Really. It didn't have too much of Hemmingway's typical misogynistic perspective. Now, this may have been because there were no female characters to speak of, but that's fine. There was no need for female characters. It's about a man...an old man, some might say. And the sea. And of course the fish.
It is actually interesting to see what fishermen deal with. See how much work it takes to reel in a marlin. The amount of respect that fisherman has for the fish that he is hunting is incredible. It's actually a beautifully written tale. I can easily see why this is considered one of the 1001 books. It was good. You could see the marlin as it jumped into the air. You could see the flash of color on its side.
Ultimately this story is about not giving up. Plain and simple. The fish drags this man out like two days from shore, and the man has to drag the fish back two days to shore strapped to the side of his boat because of its immense size. It's an interesting story that balances between the man fighting against nature and the man fighting against himself.
And it is relatively short, so even if you don't like it, it's over pretty quick, though there are no chapters or anything like, so you might as well do it all in one sitting.
Moral of the Story: Don't give up, or you won't get the fish. Oh, and don't go out into the ocean for two days without enough water.
It is actually interesting to see what fishermen deal with. See how much work it takes to reel in a marlin. The amount of respect that fisherman has for the fish that he is hunting is incredible. It's actually a beautifully written tale. I can easily see why this is considered one of the 1001 books. It was good. You could see the marlin as it jumped into the air. You could see the flash of color on its side.
Ultimately this story is about not giving up. Plain and simple. The fish drags this man out like two days from shore, and the man has to drag the fish back two days to shore strapped to the side of his boat because of its immense size. It's an interesting story that balances between the man fighting against nature and the man fighting against himself.
And it is relatively short, so even if you don't like it, it's over pretty quick, though there are no chapters or anything like, so you might as well do it all in one sitting.
Moral of the Story: Don't give up, or you won't get the fish. Oh, and don't go out into the ocean for two days without enough water.
October 01, 2007
Nineteen Eighty-Four
As Luke so perfectly worded it "between [Brave New World] and 1984 they are the classic anti-totalitarian mantras". Nineteen Eighty-Four is a story set in, well 1984, in London. Unfortunately, it is a sick and twisted 1984 that, thankfully did not come to be. You know that phrase "Big Brother is watching you"? Well, here is where it comes from. Essentially the entire world is caught into thinking one thought. People are raised to report their neighbors, family, friends, any time they hear anything that might be against "Big Brother", an omniscent being that has strangely been alive and in office for like 60 years or something.
Now, this idea that everyone is thought to think the same thing is okay, as long as you are not one of the people that think against the majority. The other minor problem is that you're always bound to think something out of the ordinary or majority...which, could cause a problem. This is a world where only three countries, all totalitarian in nature, though they'll call themselves different, exist: Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. These superstates are each in a war with one another indefinitely because they disagree with the other regime. Ingsoc, or English Socialism, is used in Oceania, Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia and Obliteration of the Self in Eastasia. Essentially they are all the same and all ruled by a leader similar to Big Brother. So we're set in the world where no one does anything out of the ordinary...except our main character Winston Smith.
So here's the basics of the story. Take an entire world where no one can think differently, do anything out of the ordinary, can't even speak in sleep because a telescreen will report everything that happens back to Big Brother. And as Winston points out, thoughtcrime (just as it says, crime against what the state wants you to think) "does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death." It's a powerful and disturbing story that, sadly, seems more and more propethic than many people would be willing to recognize. Given, we've not reached the point where I can't type this without being taken in and tortured, but sadly it doesn't seem an impossible nightmare anymore.
The book chronicles Winston's journey from questioning to doubting to the outright disobeying of Big Brother. The story then goes into great detail of the "reprogramming" of Winston once he is captured. I found that the story left little to the imagination and even less to hope for the characters. It has, however, served as a wonderful cautionary tale. It was truly a fantastic novel and I found myself drawn in and fascinated through the entire novel.
Moral of the Story: Don't the government take everything over. Stand up, clear your throat, and exercise your voice and rights.
Now, this idea that everyone is thought to think the same thing is okay, as long as you are not one of the people that think against the majority. The other minor problem is that you're always bound to think something out of the ordinary or majority...which, could cause a problem. This is a world where only three countries, all totalitarian in nature, though they'll call themselves different, exist: Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. These superstates are each in a war with one another indefinitely because they disagree with the other regime. Ingsoc, or English Socialism, is used in Oceania, Neo-Bolshevism in Eurasia and Obliteration of the Self in Eastasia. Essentially they are all the same and all ruled by a leader similar to Big Brother. So we're set in the world where no one does anything out of the ordinary...except our main character Winston Smith.
So here's the basics of the story. Take an entire world where no one can think differently, do anything out of the ordinary, can't even speak in sleep because a telescreen will report everything that happens back to Big Brother. And as Winston points out, thoughtcrime (just as it says, crime against what the state wants you to think) "does not entail death. Thoughtcrime IS death." It's a powerful and disturbing story that, sadly, seems more and more propethic than many people would be willing to recognize. Given, we've not reached the point where I can't type this without being taken in and tortured, but sadly it doesn't seem an impossible nightmare anymore.
The book chronicles Winston's journey from questioning to doubting to the outright disobeying of Big Brother. The story then goes into great detail of the "reprogramming" of Winston once he is captured. I found that the story left little to the imagination and even less to hope for the characters. It has, however, served as a wonderful cautionary tale. It was truly a fantastic novel and I found myself drawn in and fascinated through the entire novel.
Moral of the Story: Don't the government take everything over. Stand up, clear your throat, and exercise your voice and rights.
September 17, 2007
The Poisonwood Bible
An allusion to a type of tree that lives in the Congo where the Price family of missionaries travel in order to convert the natives to Nathan's brand of Christianity. The full allusion doesn't become clear until Adah, the second youngest daughter, mentions that she wants to start buying Bibles that have typos in it. Loins are changed to lion, murmur to murder, etc. In the Kikongo (please forgive any spelling errors I might make in my ignorance of the language, I don't have the book in front of me to correct them, it's not out of disrespect, just my own ignorance), the term for "precious" is the same as the name of the poisonwood tree with slight pronouncation differences. Throughout his brief term as preacher, Nathan ended his sermon by alluding to Jesus as being precious, but he used the wrong pronouncation and called Jesus the poisonwood. In one sweeping generalized sentence, I loved this book.
This one explanation of where the title came from is a perfect example of what the book focuses on. The misunderstandings, misuse, and ignorance of the American and European cultures and its damage to the African culture, the people, and ultimately the world. A story of seven different sections, six of which are named for books of the Bible, and open with verses from that book, followed by an introduction by Orleanna, the mother. Each section of the book unfolds through the eyes of one of the four daughters, Rachel, Leah, Adah, or Ruth May, and tells us of their strife and the damage that Nathan causes each of them as they grow. Used as a means of parallel, the way Nathan treats the women in his family is the same that America and Europe treated Africa. The book follows how the girls grow and, while they leave the missionary in Kilanga, the Congo never necessarily leaves them. In some ways haunted by what had occurred in their lives during those 20 or so month, the girls grow and establish themselves in whatever venue they choose to take. They are very distinct characters, even the twins, Adah and Leah, couldn't be more different, but at the same time so similar.
Each character's narrative draw us deeper and deeper into the story and the life that is both happening in and around them, but at the same time, crashing down around them. It's a beautiful and well written story, that provides, though fictional, incredible insight into what occurred in Africa in the 60s and onwards. While the story focuses on missionaries, I believe that it is less about God and Christianity, and more about the crimes that were committed by our country in the name of colonization and democracy. Much of what is written or said by the characters is poignant and powerful, spanning well beyond the limits of Africa.
My only concern was that at first I thought it was a bit long. There is a great deal of story following the exodus out of Kilanga. As these pages began to unfold, I realized more and more how necessary it was for the story. The story doesn't start or end with their mission project. It had started well before the Price family ever arrived and, I'd imagine, not only will continue after the death of the Price family, but all of their progeny. It is an ongoing story of our own greed, and self-interest.
I honestly don't think that I could recommend this story enough. It's beautiful and touching and emotional. Kingsolver's insight into humanity is incredible and it appears through the mouths of babes, as it were.
Moral of the Story: Those who never have, and don't know that they don't have, are probably 100% content. It isn't our job to force them otherwise.
This one explanation of where the title came from is a perfect example of what the book focuses on. The misunderstandings, misuse, and ignorance of the American and European cultures and its damage to the African culture, the people, and ultimately the world. A story of seven different sections, six of which are named for books of the Bible, and open with verses from that book, followed by an introduction by Orleanna, the mother. Each section of the book unfolds through the eyes of one of the four daughters, Rachel, Leah, Adah, or Ruth May, and tells us of their strife and the damage that Nathan causes each of them as they grow. Used as a means of parallel, the way Nathan treats the women in his family is the same that America and Europe treated Africa. The book follows how the girls grow and, while they leave the missionary in Kilanga, the Congo never necessarily leaves them. In some ways haunted by what had occurred in their lives during those 20 or so month, the girls grow and establish themselves in whatever venue they choose to take. They are very distinct characters, even the twins, Adah and Leah, couldn't be more different, but at the same time so similar.
Each character's narrative draw us deeper and deeper into the story and the life that is both happening in and around them, but at the same time, crashing down around them. It's a beautiful and well written story, that provides, though fictional, incredible insight into what occurred in Africa in the 60s and onwards. While the story focuses on missionaries, I believe that it is less about God and Christianity, and more about the crimes that were committed by our country in the name of colonization and democracy. Much of what is written or said by the characters is poignant and powerful, spanning well beyond the limits of Africa.
My only concern was that at first I thought it was a bit long. There is a great deal of story following the exodus out of Kilanga. As these pages began to unfold, I realized more and more how necessary it was for the story. The story doesn't start or end with their mission project. It had started well before the Price family ever arrived and, I'd imagine, not only will continue after the death of the Price family, but all of their progeny. It is an ongoing story of our own greed, and self-interest.
I honestly don't think that I could recommend this story enough. It's beautiful and touching and emotional. Kingsolver's insight into humanity is incredible and it appears through the mouths of babes, as it were.
Moral of the Story: Those who never have, and don't know that they don't have, are probably 100% content. It isn't our job to force them otherwise.
September 13, 2007
Hard Times
I'm unsure as to my feelings on this book. It's one of those books that is kinda between good and bad. I wouldn't say that it is bad. Because it isn't. Predictable, yes. But bad, no. Perhaps that's ideal, though. In theory, shouldn't all books be some what predictable? Authors shouldn't randomly introduce something or throw in a deux ex machina to finish off the story. Chekhov once said that if you introduce a gun in the first line of a play, that gun should go off by the end (hence why it's been called Chekhov's gun). Nothing should be introduced for no reason which will play by the end.
Dickens is good at that. He throw things in that either have a greater purpose (i.e. metaphor) or will play a part later. Hard Times is no exception. Unfortunately, I think that the plot seems a little muddy at first. Maybe it's not muddy, maybe the river is just too wide and doesn't narrow until too far down the stream. We're introduced to the Gradginds and Bounderby. We can tell early on that Bounderby, probably in his forties at the start of the story, is in love with Louisa Gradgrind, roughly ten at the start of the story (which makes one cringe...ew). We also meet the rest of the Gradgrinds who are so intent on learning facts and ignore the emotions that one feels. Later we meet Sissy Jupe, who lives with a traveling circus (much looked down upon by Gradgrind) who is quite the opposite of the Gradgrinds who she moves in with after her father has run off. Ok, so the story is going to be Sissy teaching the Gradgrinds about how to show emotions and truly express their feelings.
Well, that story drops and we're introduced to Stephen Blackpool, who is a simple honest man, with a drunken wife that he's trying to escape from because she keeps dragging him down. We're also introduced to Rachel, who I couldn't figure out for a while who the hell she was, and Mrs. Pegler, who was easy to figure out her role in the story.
So, basically, within a short period of time, Dickens manages to throw 12 or so characters at us, all of which are connected within 6 degrees or so, but seemingly have no real connections. For each character, he has developed a path that they are to follow throughout the course of the book. Like a well written play, none of these characters are without a purpose. Yes, some are archtypes and extremities of characterization, but each one will play a part in either the further development of the main characters or the plot...which eventually becomes clear.
The plot is, as I understand it: Bounderby (who is so proud of his raising himself out of the gutters as his parent's abandoned him) marries Louisa (ew...but agreed to do it at her brother's (Tom Jr.) behest who was to work for Bounderby and wanted to give himself leverage). Tom Jr. is in desperate need of money and frequently takes from Louisa and is an ungrateful whelp, as we are told again and again (the downside of paying an author by the word). Meanwhile, Stephen, who asked Bounderby for help to escape his crazy-ass wife, has been kicked out of the plant because, well, I don't really understand that part, but I think it was because of his dispute with Bounderby, and as with all British novels, misunderstandings occur and hilarity ensues...only nothing was really funny. So Stephen leaves in order to find work elsewhere, at which point Tom Jr. tries to help him in some way. By trying to help him, Stephen becomes accused of a crime that, if you knew him, you'd know he wouldn't commit. As this is happening, Louisa leaves Bounderby because she is miserable and the death of her mother has brought her back to Stone House (where her family lives) and Sissy helps nurse her emotions and shows her compassion. Of course more happens and there are more characters, but to the overall story arc, they're truly unimportant.
In my opinion, there was nothing truly spectacular about this novel. It was enjoyable, though predictable, and had the type of ending all good Victorian stories should: the good get what they deserve and the bad get their just desserts. As I understand it, this was written for many purposes by Dickens. A novel on the working poor and their station in life. A parable to teach us all a valuable lesson on truth, morality and justice. And a little bit of a lesson in honesty to top it all off. Would I suggest reading this book if you're not on the quest to complete all 1001 novels? Probably not. Dickens has much better books worth reading, though the descriptions are typical of Dickens, richly defined and beautiful. So if you're looking for a quick read, I'd look elsewhere. But if you're looking for a book that many people have probably not read, but is decent enough, yea, take a crack at it. But don't blame me if you don't like it.
Moral of the Story: Emotions have a place in the world and shouldn't be neglected for the hard facts; the two should combine to make the person stronger. Oh, and don't lie, it's bad.
Dickens is good at that. He throw things in that either have a greater purpose (i.e. metaphor) or will play a part later. Hard Times is no exception. Unfortunately, I think that the plot seems a little muddy at first. Maybe it's not muddy, maybe the river is just too wide and doesn't narrow until too far down the stream. We're introduced to the Gradginds and Bounderby. We can tell early on that Bounderby, probably in his forties at the start of the story, is in love with Louisa Gradgrind, roughly ten at the start of the story (which makes one cringe...ew). We also meet the rest of the Gradgrinds who are so intent on learning facts and ignore the emotions that one feels. Later we meet Sissy Jupe, who lives with a traveling circus (much looked down upon by Gradgrind) who is quite the opposite of the Gradgrinds who she moves in with after her father has run off. Ok, so the story is going to be Sissy teaching the Gradgrinds about how to show emotions and truly express their feelings.
Well, that story drops and we're introduced to Stephen Blackpool, who is a simple honest man, with a drunken wife that he's trying to escape from because she keeps dragging him down. We're also introduced to Rachel, who I couldn't figure out for a while who the hell she was, and Mrs. Pegler, who was easy to figure out her role in the story.
So, basically, within a short period of time, Dickens manages to throw 12 or so characters at us, all of which are connected within 6 degrees or so, but seemingly have no real connections. For each character, he has developed a path that they are to follow throughout the course of the book. Like a well written play, none of these characters are without a purpose. Yes, some are archtypes and extremities of characterization, but each one will play a part in either the further development of the main characters or the plot...which eventually becomes clear.
The plot is, as I understand it: Bounderby (who is so proud of his raising himself out of the gutters as his parent's abandoned him) marries Louisa (ew...but agreed to do it at her brother's (Tom Jr.) behest who was to work for Bounderby and wanted to give himself leverage). Tom Jr. is in desperate need of money and frequently takes from Louisa and is an ungrateful whelp, as we are told again and again (the downside of paying an author by the word). Meanwhile, Stephen, who asked Bounderby for help to escape his crazy-ass wife, has been kicked out of the plant because, well, I don't really understand that part, but I think it was because of his dispute with Bounderby, and as with all British novels, misunderstandings occur and hilarity ensues...only nothing was really funny. So Stephen leaves in order to find work elsewhere, at which point Tom Jr. tries to help him in some way. By trying to help him, Stephen becomes accused of a crime that, if you knew him, you'd know he wouldn't commit. As this is happening, Louisa leaves Bounderby because she is miserable and the death of her mother has brought her back to Stone House (where her family lives) and Sissy helps nurse her emotions and shows her compassion. Of course more happens and there are more characters, but to the overall story arc, they're truly unimportant.
In my opinion, there was nothing truly spectacular about this novel. It was enjoyable, though predictable, and had the type of ending all good Victorian stories should: the good get what they deserve and the bad get their just desserts. As I understand it, this was written for many purposes by Dickens. A novel on the working poor and their station in life. A parable to teach us all a valuable lesson on truth, morality and justice. And a little bit of a lesson in honesty to top it all off. Would I suggest reading this book if you're not on the quest to complete all 1001 novels? Probably not. Dickens has much better books worth reading, though the descriptions are typical of Dickens, richly defined and beautiful. So if you're looking for a quick read, I'd look elsewhere. But if you're looking for a book that many people have probably not read, but is decent enough, yea, take a crack at it. But don't blame me if you don't like it.
Moral of the Story: Emotions have a place in the world and shouldn't be neglected for the hard facts; the two should combine to make the person stronger. Oh, and don't lie, it's bad.
July 29, 2007
The Handmaids Tale
I was sort of excited to read the Handmaids Tale, because pretty much everyone who graduated from Williamsville North read it. Based on the fact that I was in the advanced English class and had certain teachers, I somehow managed to graduate high-school without having read this one.
Basically, set at some indeterminable point in the future, the Constitution is suspended the the US becomes the Republic of Gilead which is taken over by the religious right. And of course, because it's the religious right, sex is dirty and there are women appointed to do the dirty work of bearing children of the old impotent white men... the Handmaids. The novel is the personal narrative of one handmaid, Offred ("Of Fred" - get it?) as she reminisces about when she used to have a husband, kid, and normal life and navigates her way through attempting to become pregnant and all of the other craziness that is Gilead.
As a woman this novel really offended my sense of how things in this world are. From a very simplistic point of view, the main message that Atwood is trying to convey is that "white men are the source of evil". I looked up a few discussion boards and forums (just to see what other people thought were the main discussion points for this novel) and none of them really came out and said "white men are the source of evil", but sort of danced around it by talking about oppression of women, sexual freedom, etc.
To date, I can't recall any significant times that I've been told "no" due to the fact that I am a female. In this day an age, a girl can get an education, go to graduate school, and work in a large professional services firm and never have the feeling that she is being held back or somehow disenfranchised due to the fact that she is a female. She also is free to enjoy all of the pleasures of this world.... including the company of men. Since I'm in the working phase of my life right now, I look around and see that my company has lots of programs and women's networking circles. I've been matched up with some very strong female mentors, and in some ways, I feel as if though the women in the office and are connected to each other better than the men are. During my education, I never really felt as if though the fact that I was a female was holding me back - I won scholarships, I was elected to student government, I majored in a challenging major that traditionally has been mostly male, etc.
But anyway, back to Atwood and my highschool. I don't think that this book is appropriate to be teaching to suburban primarily white high school students for several reasons. The first is that the educators refuse to explicitly address the main point of the novel, which is "white men are the source evil" (can you imagine the parent phone calls that this one would get?) which is insulting their students intelligence and ability to reason. It's also not appropriate to make children think that their fathers, the ones who bring home half of the family income are somehow going to cause a social plague.
The second is that the main point of the novel (white men are the source of evil) is somewhat irrelevant in this day and age. Now, before all of you out there reading this get your underwear all in a knot, realize that I am saying this as someone who is "pro-female". I believe that women should be treated as equals to men, meaning exactly that, equality. And I think that equality comes with a level playing field. I also have found it to be true that If you are smart and work hard, you can get ahead - no matter if you pee standing up or sitting down. Yes, historically women and other minorities have not been afforded the same opportunities as the white male and women have a whole mess of issues that they have to worry about such as balancing a family and a career, etc based upon historical gender roles that most people seem to fall into. But, in this day and age, a lot of that has changed as employers have put in programs for working mothers, schools have offered scholarships, you read newsweek articles about how "stay at home dads" are increasing in numbers, etc. To preach to American high school student that this archaic nonsense is way that the world still is or is at risk of becoming in the United States, where the novel is set, when they haven't even had a chance to see how things are for themselves, is indoctrinating them with a preconceived notion that is false.
I'm going to mark this as a "good book", not because I particularly enjoyed it, or think that the point of it is relevant, but because it enraged me so much. And at the end of the day, if a book makes you feel anything, it's good.
Moral of the story: "You go Girl. And you go Boy too".
Basically, set at some indeterminable point in the future, the Constitution is suspended the the US becomes the Republic of Gilead which is taken over by the religious right. And of course, because it's the religious right, sex is dirty and there are women appointed to do the dirty work of bearing children of the old impotent white men... the Handmaids. The novel is the personal narrative of one handmaid, Offred ("Of Fred" - get it?) as she reminisces about when she used to have a husband, kid, and normal life and navigates her way through attempting to become pregnant and all of the other craziness that is Gilead.
As a woman this novel really offended my sense of how things in this world are. From a very simplistic point of view, the main message that Atwood is trying to convey is that "white men are the source of evil". I looked up a few discussion boards and forums (just to see what other people thought were the main discussion points for this novel) and none of them really came out and said "white men are the source of evil", but sort of danced around it by talking about oppression of women, sexual freedom, etc.
To date, I can't recall any significant times that I've been told "no" due to the fact that I am a female. In this day an age, a girl can get an education, go to graduate school, and work in a large professional services firm and never have the feeling that she is being held back or somehow disenfranchised due to the fact that she is a female. She also is free to enjoy all of the pleasures of this world.... including the company of men. Since I'm in the working phase of my life right now, I look around and see that my company has lots of programs and women's networking circles. I've been matched up with some very strong female mentors, and in some ways, I feel as if though the women in the office and are connected to each other better than the men are. During my education, I never really felt as if though the fact that I was a female was holding me back - I won scholarships, I was elected to student government, I majored in a challenging major that traditionally has been mostly male, etc.
But anyway, back to Atwood and my highschool. I don't think that this book is appropriate to be teaching to suburban primarily white high school students for several reasons. The first is that the educators refuse to explicitly address the main point of the novel, which is "white men are the source evil" (can you imagine the parent phone calls that this one would get?) which is insulting their students intelligence and ability to reason. It's also not appropriate to make children think that their fathers, the ones who bring home half of the family income are somehow going to cause a social plague.
The second is that the main point of the novel (white men are the source of evil) is somewhat irrelevant in this day and age. Now, before all of you out there reading this get your underwear all in a knot, realize that I am saying this as someone who is "pro-female". I believe that women should be treated as equals to men, meaning exactly that, equality. And I think that equality comes with a level playing field. I also have found it to be true that If you are smart and work hard, you can get ahead - no matter if you pee standing up or sitting down. Yes, historically women and other minorities have not been afforded the same opportunities as the white male and women have a whole mess of issues that they have to worry about such as balancing a family and a career, etc based upon historical gender roles that most people seem to fall into. But, in this day and age, a lot of that has changed as employers have put in programs for working mothers, schools have offered scholarships, you read newsweek articles about how "stay at home dads" are increasing in numbers, etc. To preach to American high school student that this archaic nonsense is way that the world still is or is at risk of becoming in the United States, where the novel is set, when they haven't even had a chance to see how things are for themselves, is indoctrinating them with a preconceived notion that is false.
I'm going to mark this as a "good book", not because I particularly enjoyed it, or think that the point of it is relevant, but because it enraged me so much. And at the end of the day, if a book makes you feel anything, it's good.
Moral of the story: "You go Girl. And you go Boy too".
July 19, 2007
Summer in Baden Baden
I wanted to enjoy this book. I really did. Leonard Tsypkin, a Russian doctor wrote only one novel, as a homage to one of his favorite Russian authors, Fyodor Dostoevsky. Tsypkin died in obscurity, and unpublished. After this death, Summer in Baden Baden was discovered and became noteworthy enough to make it onto the 1001 list.
Tsypkin writes the story of Fydor and his second wife Anna living in Baden Baden, Germany after Dostoevsky has left Russia, with significant debt and suffering from debilitating epilepsy. The themes of the novel are similar to the themes of most Russian novels, gambling debt, addiction, sex, and paranoia. Another thing that is very interesting to me is that Tsypkin was Jewish and spent most of his life being persecuted for his religious beliefs, however his novel captures Anna and Fyodor's raging antisemitism.
You can't help but feel bad for Anna, whose husband walks all over her and is downright abusive as they have retreated to Baden Baden to regroup and put their lives back in order. Anna is the one who spends her money to support them, Anna is the one who sits by his bedside when he has epileptic fits, and Anna is the one who endures his barbs.
The main reason that I didn't like this novel was that it was difficult to read. I think that there just isn't a very good English translation of this novel. I have to give Tsypkin the benefit of the doubt and assume that his prose is actually readable in his native language. I've read other Russians before... Dostoevsky and Tolstoy and have found their stories to be engaging. But then again, they also used things called "paragraphs" and "dialog". The translation abandons all of these normal conventions, and is pages and pages of dense block prose. I think that I missed a lot of what what was being said due to the fact that it was so incredibly hard to make my way through.
Moral of the story: If it's a Russian, get a good translation.
Tsypkin writes the story of Fydor and his second wife Anna living in Baden Baden, Germany after Dostoevsky has left Russia, with significant debt and suffering from debilitating epilepsy. The themes of the novel are similar to the themes of most Russian novels, gambling debt, addiction, sex, and paranoia. Another thing that is very interesting to me is that Tsypkin was Jewish and spent most of his life being persecuted for his religious beliefs, however his novel captures Anna and Fyodor's raging antisemitism.
You can't help but feel bad for Anna, whose husband walks all over her and is downright abusive as they have retreated to Baden Baden to regroup and put their lives back in order. Anna is the one who spends her money to support them, Anna is the one who sits by his bedside when he has epileptic fits, and Anna is the one who endures his barbs.
The main reason that I didn't like this novel was that it was difficult to read. I think that there just isn't a very good English translation of this novel. I have to give Tsypkin the benefit of the doubt and assume that his prose is actually readable in his native language. I've read other Russians before... Dostoevsky and Tolstoy and have found their stories to be engaging. But then again, they also used things called "paragraphs" and "dialog". The translation abandons all of these normal conventions, and is pages and pages of dense block prose. I think that I missed a lot of what what was being said due to the fact that it was so incredibly hard to make my way through.
Moral of the story: If it's a Russian, get a good translation.
July 12, 2007
Aesops Fables
Just as a program note, I am a wee bit behind on book blogging. I'm hoping that I will catch up and my "to read" list will be a legitimate list rather than a "books that must be blogged about".
When it comes to 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, Phillll and I have had several strategy related conversations. Does it make sense to do them in order? Should we plow through the longest ones first, and save the short ones for when we are on our death beds? What about reverse order? I've sort of decided that I'm going to read whatever strikes my fancy at the moment, which means that the summers will be full of dense Russian novels, and the winters will be books from the 20th century.
After one of these strategy conversations, I decided that I might as well tackle the very first book on the list, Aesops Fables. I ended up buying this one on itunes and burning it onto four 80 minute cd's which I listened to on the way to work. The way that the fables are structured is that they are a series of short parables, which end with a statement that pretty much sums up the moral of the story.
Initially, I was a bit leery of this book, thinking that anything penned around 625 BC wasn't probably going to have much relevance to modern day life. But it turns out that ole Aesop did have a few gems of wisdom despite the fact that his text is ancient. The fables are about basic things that we sometimes forget in todays hectic world. Saying Please and Thank You. Not Keeping Company with Asses. Putting all of Your Eggs in One Basket. Never Trust Your Enemy. An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure. Slow and Steady Wins the Race.
A lot of the morals at the end of the fables have endured to the point where they've become common expressions. It was really interesting to listen to the fables as a whole, because it provided the orgin of many modern phrases, some of which are listed above.
After listening to them for a while to, you got to know the characters pretty well. For the most part, if a fable started out with a wolf, you knew something bad was going to go down. Same for jackals. Asses were pretty much just there, and it wasn't really a surprise that the tortoise won the race by going slow and steady.
It made me start to think about how the world would be a much nicer place to be if everyone were to listen to the fables and actually pay attention to the lessons that they are trying to teach us. Perhaps we would treat each other with a bit more respect. Perhaps we would be more cautious about making friends with those who are in reality our enemies. I can't help but think that the decline of the US's image abroad couldn't be helped with some good ole fashioned Aesop inspired common sense. But then again, it is possible that I'm wrong all together - it's too late for all of humanity. Afterall Aesop did say:
A singing bird was confined in a cage which hung outside a window,
and had a way of singing at night when all other birds were asleep.
One night a Bat came and clung to the bars of the cage, and asked
the Bird why she was silent by day and sang only at night. "I have a
very good reason for doing so," said the Bird. "It was once when I was
singing in the daytime that a fowler was attracted by my voice, and
set his nets for me and caught me. Since then I have never sung except
by night." But the Bat replied, "It is no use your doing that now when
you are a prisoner: if only you had done so before you were caught,
you might still have been free."
"Precautions are useless after the crisis."
When it comes to 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, Phillll and I have had several strategy related conversations. Does it make sense to do them in order? Should we plow through the longest ones first, and save the short ones for when we are on our death beds? What about reverse order? I've sort of decided that I'm going to read whatever strikes my fancy at the moment, which means that the summers will be full of dense Russian novels, and the winters will be books from the 20th century.
After one of these strategy conversations, I decided that I might as well tackle the very first book on the list, Aesops Fables. I ended up buying this one on itunes and burning it onto four 80 minute cd's which I listened to on the way to work. The way that the fables are structured is that they are a series of short parables, which end with a statement that pretty much sums up the moral of the story.
Initially, I was a bit leery of this book, thinking that anything penned around 625 BC wasn't probably going to have much relevance to modern day life. But it turns out that ole Aesop did have a few gems of wisdom despite the fact that his text is ancient. The fables are about basic things that we sometimes forget in todays hectic world. Saying Please and Thank You. Not Keeping Company with Asses. Putting all of Your Eggs in One Basket. Never Trust Your Enemy. An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure. Slow and Steady Wins the Race.
A lot of the morals at the end of the fables have endured to the point where they've become common expressions. It was really interesting to listen to the fables as a whole, because it provided the orgin of many modern phrases, some of which are listed above.
After listening to them for a while to, you got to know the characters pretty well. For the most part, if a fable started out with a wolf, you knew something bad was going to go down. Same for jackals. Asses were pretty much just there, and it wasn't really a surprise that the tortoise won the race by going slow and steady.
It made me start to think about how the world would be a much nicer place to be if everyone were to listen to the fables and actually pay attention to the lessons that they are trying to teach us. Perhaps we would treat each other with a bit more respect. Perhaps we would be more cautious about making friends with those who are in reality our enemies. I can't help but think that the decline of the US's image abroad couldn't be helped with some good ole fashioned Aesop inspired common sense. But then again, it is possible that I'm wrong all together - it's too late for all of humanity. Afterall Aesop did say:
A singing bird was confined in a cage which hung outside a window,
and had a way of singing at night when all other birds were asleep.
One night a Bat came and clung to the bars of the cage, and asked
the Bird why she was silent by day and sang only at night. "I have a
very good reason for doing so," said the Bird. "It was once when I was
singing in the daytime that a fowler was attracted by my voice, and
set his nets for me and caught me. Since then I have never sung except
by night." But the Bat replied, "It is no use your doing that now when
you are a prisoner: if only you had done so before you were caught,
you might still have been free."
"Precautions are useless after the crisis."
April 27, 2007
A Brave New World
I meant to post this a couple of weeks ago when I completed the book. However for one reason or another it escaped me. But here we go. A Brave New World is set in the future where individuals are no longer, well, individuals. It's a time where a person is put into a group at birth and basically raised to like it. There is no fear of death, because no one ever looks old and death is something that is bred into them as a benefit to society. There are also no emotions. Sex is, more or less, required. Drugs are the norm. To keep people from getting pregnant everyone takes like five contraceptives. Oh, and people are bred in little jars with all sorts of medicinal miracles are pumped into their bodies as fetuses so no one ever gets sick.
On the one side, it paints the picture that everyone is happy. And most of the people seem happy with what they are. The lower class have been raised to not want to be any thing other than lower class. Yes, the downside is that no one is different. But hey, everyone is happy, right? And that's what's important.
Although things seem good for everyone, what about that person who doesn't fit in, even when they have spent their lives being conditionalized to fit in? What happens when a savage (someone who still procreates the "old fashion" way) comes into the new world? Well, thats when the story starts getting good.
Part of the problem with the novel was that Huxley spent so much time showing how the world was, the plot seemed lost amid the descriptions of the world and the way people lived. When the "Savage" finally comes to the new world to see how different and horrible things actually are, it seems almost a lost cause. There is a clash between the old way and the new way, each proposing that their way is the best way.
The book was good. It is always interesting to see how one person views the potential future. Huxley basically took everything that was taboo in his culture and made it compulsary in his new world. A world where everyone seems free, but no one really is.
In the end your left wanting more, left just a touch unsatisfied with what has unfolded through the pages. It's a sad new world, and I think that ultimately that is the point. Huxley wasn't creating a world where we have something to look forward to. He was painting a picture of what might come to be if the government, those in power, have too much power and too much say in our lives. It reminded me, in many ways, of V For Vendetta. A sad future where we've let ourselves become complacent in what is handed us.
A brave new world, indeed. A brave new world indeed.
Moral of the Story: Well, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm sure that it has to do with not letting the government do whatever it wants.
On the one side, it paints the picture that everyone is happy. And most of the people seem happy with what they are. The lower class have been raised to not want to be any thing other than lower class. Yes, the downside is that no one is different. But hey, everyone is happy, right? And that's what's important.
Although things seem good for everyone, what about that person who doesn't fit in, even when they have spent their lives being conditionalized to fit in? What happens when a savage (someone who still procreates the "old fashion" way) comes into the new world? Well, thats when the story starts getting good.
Part of the problem with the novel was that Huxley spent so much time showing how the world was, the plot seemed lost amid the descriptions of the world and the way people lived. When the "Savage" finally comes to the new world to see how different and horrible things actually are, it seems almost a lost cause. There is a clash between the old way and the new way, each proposing that their way is the best way.
The book was good. It is always interesting to see how one person views the potential future. Huxley basically took everything that was taboo in his culture and made it compulsary in his new world. A world where everyone seems free, but no one really is.
In the end your left wanting more, left just a touch unsatisfied with what has unfolded through the pages. It's a sad new world, and I think that ultimately that is the point. Huxley wasn't creating a world where we have something to look forward to. He was painting a picture of what might come to be if the government, those in power, have too much power and too much say in our lives. It reminded me, in many ways, of V For Vendetta. A sad future where we've let ourselves become complacent in what is handed us.
A brave new world, indeed. A brave new world indeed.
Moral of the Story: Well, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm sure that it has to do with not letting the government do whatever it wants.
April 24, 2007
The Fan Man
Did you ever wonder what was going through the heads of really sick people? The people that you see screaming on the streets, on 20/20 living in their 300 bathrobes afraid to leave the house, the man dragging the hot dog stand umbrella for New York City blocks on end, obssesed with buying as many fans as he can in chinatown?
Meet Horse. Horse Badorties. The Fan Man.
William Kotzwinkle creates the character of Horse and then spend "The Fan Man" taking the reader through his inner monologue as Horse wanders the streets of New York City, paranoid, delusional, and in search of 15 year old girls to corrupt. The only problem is that Horse is so distracted and disorganized and high that he his own shortcomings render him harmless to the young ladies which he recruits to be in his Love Chorus, which he conducts at a church in preparation for the grand performance which will be televised.
This book isn't one that is going to have a mass appeal , but I can definately appreciate the character development, because as sick and high as Horse is, you can't but help feel some compassion for him, especially when he spends an entire day/chapter saying the word "Dorky". Although if you were to meet him on the street, you would probably wrinkle your nose and pretend to see right through him, in he novel Horse actually speaks to you. And as scary as it is, you find yourself wanting Horse to succeed in the face of everyday obstacles such as landlords that demand rent, junkyard owners, and a whole host of others.
Moral of the Story: Sometimes it's okay to be demented
Meet Horse. Horse Badorties. The Fan Man.
William Kotzwinkle creates the character of Horse and then spend "The Fan Man" taking the reader through his inner monologue as Horse wanders the streets of New York City, paranoid, delusional, and in search of 15 year old girls to corrupt. The only problem is that Horse is so distracted and disorganized and high that he his own shortcomings render him harmless to the young ladies which he recruits to be in his Love Chorus, which he conducts at a church in preparation for the grand performance which will be televised.
This book isn't one that is going to have a mass appeal , but I can definately appreciate the character development, because as sick and high as Horse is, you can't but help feel some compassion for him, especially when he spends an entire day/chapter saying the word "Dorky". Although if you were to meet him on the street, you would probably wrinkle your nose and pretend to see right through him, in he novel Horse actually speaks to you. And as scary as it is, you find yourself wanting Horse to succeed in the face of everyday obstacles such as landlords that demand rent, junkyard owners, and a whole host of others.
Moral of the Story: Sometimes it's okay to be demented
April 03, 2007
For Whom The Bell Tolls
For Whom The Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway was a shocking book. I saw say shocking, because I was shocked that I actually really enjoyed it. I've read A Sun Also Rises, and be the story or Hemingway's disgusting, blatant misogyny or his writing style, it was dreadful. But FWTBT was different, well, kind of. I had attempted to read it while in High School, still too young, and just couldn't get into it. So I was a little (read a lot) hesitant when I began my journey into FWTBT.
For Whom The Bell Tolls follows the story of Robert Jordan, an American college Spanish instructor, who has traveled to Spain to help the Republic during the Spanish Civil War. He is a dynamiter, and has been sent to blow up a bridge. He meets a group of guerrillas who are going to help accomplish his goal. During that time he meets, and falls in love with a member of the band (who does not fight and was once a prisoner of the Fascists) Maria. The story weaves between Jordan convincing the band to help him and his love for Maria.
Noted as one of the best war books written (Hemingway himself was a journalist in the Spanish Civil War), I can see why. There are multiple times where Hemingway's characters tell Jordan of their past and why they are fighting. Pilar, who is the ad-hoc leader of the band when her husband/partner wavers, tells a particularly graphic story of the flailing and murder of 20+ Fascists (and that story is not for the weak stomached).
By the end of the novel, we are left in a battle for the bridge, to ensure that it is blown properly. I found myself having favorite guerrillas who I wanted to succeed in their mission and walk away unscathed. But it is war, and without revealing too much, not everyone walks away. But, the last chapter was especially riveting and kept me glued to what was going on, which I was not expecting. I found myself having great concern for many of the characters and found myself cringing and biting my nails (quite literally) when things didn't necessarily go exactly as planned.
I have only two complaints, but they were issues that I figured I would have. The first is Hemingway's style of writing. He has a tendancy to repeat things over and over and over and over again. Hemingway likes to repeat things. Every once in a while, Hemingway will repeat his point, even if it is not the most important point. There is frequently a chance that Hemingway will repeat himself.
The second problem that I had was Hemingway's misogyny. He makes no attempt to hide his feelings towards how women should be in a relationship. I frequently found myself disgusted for no other reason than the way Maria would talk to Robert.
But all in all, those two points can be over looked, and For Whom The Bell Tolls can, in my opinion, but read as a truly beautiful novel.
Moral Of The Story: Even in war, beauty can arise from the ashes.
For Whom The Bell Tolls follows the story of Robert Jordan, an American college Spanish instructor, who has traveled to Spain to help the Republic during the Spanish Civil War. He is a dynamiter, and has been sent to blow up a bridge. He meets a group of guerrillas who are going to help accomplish his goal. During that time he meets, and falls in love with a member of the band (who does not fight and was once a prisoner of the Fascists) Maria. The story weaves between Jordan convincing the band to help him and his love for Maria.
Noted as one of the best war books written (Hemingway himself was a journalist in the Spanish Civil War), I can see why. There are multiple times where Hemingway's characters tell Jordan of their past and why they are fighting. Pilar, who is the ad-hoc leader of the band when her husband/partner wavers, tells a particularly graphic story of the flailing and murder of 20+ Fascists (and that story is not for the weak stomached).
By the end of the novel, we are left in a battle for the bridge, to ensure that it is blown properly. I found myself having favorite guerrillas who I wanted to succeed in their mission and walk away unscathed. But it is war, and without revealing too much, not everyone walks away. But, the last chapter was especially riveting and kept me glued to what was going on, which I was not expecting. I found myself having great concern for many of the characters and found myself cringing and biting my nails (quite literally) when things didn't necessarily go exactly as planned.
I have only two complaints, but they were issues that I figured I would have. The first is Hemingway's style of writing. He has a tendancy to repeat things over and over and over and over again. Hemingway likes to repeat things. Every once in a while, Hemingway will repeat his point, even if it is not the most important point. There is frequently a chance that Hemingway will repeat himself.
The second problem that I had was Hemingway's misogyny. He makes no attempt to hide his feelings towards how women should be in a relationship. I frequently found myself disgusted for no other reason than the way Maria would talk to Robert.
But all in all, those two points can be over looked, and For Whom The Bell Tolls can, in my opinion, but read as a truly beautiful novel.
Moral Of The Story: Even in war, beauty can arise from the ashes.
March 28, 2007
The Lord Of The Rings
After many weeks (read months) I've finally completed The Lord Of The Rings series. Now, as aforementioned, I feel that this book should be considered three different books as it's been published (in most instances) as three different books. However, this was not the case, and, though intimidated by the length of the book(s) when I started, I picked it up with interest.
I mean, I have the three movies. I loved them. They were great. I only imagine that the book is as good, as, in my opinion, it is very rare indeed for the movie to be better than the books. The same held true. J.R.R. Tolkien was a master-class fantasy writer. Weaving characters in and out the story with seeming ease. Creating a background and history to all of Middle-Earth that would put an Egyptian historian to shame. Of course, most of this history was not told in the LOTR, however, there is reference to it.
For anyone that doesn't know the story, it is a sequel (if it can be called that) to The Hobbit. It is based on the ring that Bilbo gets from Gollum. Gandalf (the wizard who lead the Hobbit crew) discovers that this ring is the ring of Sauron, the evil in Middle Earth. The only option is to go deep into Mordor (Sauron's land) and destroy the ring where it was made. A fellowship (hence the name of the first "book") of nine is formed to take the ring to Mordor. So the story is basically the fellowship's adventures as they try to destroy the ring. What ends up happening pits the good beings of Middle-Earth against the evil beings...the ultimate fight of good versus evil.
All in all it was a good book. The story was wonderful and beautiful written. It was also interesting to attempt to read Tolkien's Christian theories in it (as that was why he wrote it). Unlike C.S. Lewis (of whom Tolkien was a close friend) and the Chronicles of Narnia, Tolkien was much more discreet in his beliefs. The characters are interesting and as varied as nine characters who have the same basic set of beliefs can be.
My only complaint about it was that it can be tedious. I think that a lot of this comes from having seen the movies in advanced. There were no real surprises for most of the book. Black shadows that creep around the scene are already known and are no longer secret. There are also huge portions of Frodo (the Ringbearer) and Sam. And there story is by no means as exciting as the other. I found myself devouring the stories of the other characters and dragging through the story of Frodo and Sam. While I know that some people can quickly read through this book, I found the Frodo and Sam portions almost too much to bear at times. While it was interesting to see things from Sam's perspective on occasion (as this is rarely done in the movie), it was too long.
I would definitely recommend this book. And if you haven't seen the movie, read the book first, as I don't think the movies will be a disappoint as they followed the story pretty closely.
The Morale Of The Story: Reading the book first is usually better to do as the movie, even a good one, could slow the book progress. And when the 80 page introduction is about the type of pipe weed that Hobbit's smoke...skip it.
I mean, I have the three movies. I loved them. They were great. I only imagine that the book is as good, as, in my opinion, it is very rare indeed for the movie to be better than the books. The same held true. J.R.R. Tolkien was a master-class fantasy writer. Weaving characters in and out the story with seeming ease. Creating a background and history to all of Middle-Earth that would put an Egyptian historian to shame. Of course, most of this history was not told in the LOTR, however, there is reference to it.
For anyone that doesn't know the story, it is a sequel (if it can be called that) to The Hobbit. It is based on the ring that Bilbo gets from Gollum. Gandalf (the wizard who lead the Hobbit crew) discovers that this ring is the ring of Sauron, the evil in Middle Earth. The only option is to go deep into Mordor (Sauron's land) and destroy the ring where it was made. A fellowship (hence the name of the first "book") of nine is formed to take the ring to Mordor. So the story is basically the fellowship's adventures as they try to destroy the ring. What ends up happening pits the good beings of Middle-Earth against the evil beings...the ultimate fight of good versus evil.
All in all it was a good book. The story was wonderful and beautiful written. It was also interesting to attempt to read Tolkien's Christian theories in it (as that was why he wrote it). Unlike C.S. Lewis (of whom Tolkien was a close friend) and the Chronicles of Narnia, Tolkien was much more discreet in his beliefs. The characters are interesting and as varied as nine characters who have the same basic set of beliefs can be.
My only complaint about it was that it can be tedious. I think that a lot of this comes from having seen the movies in advanced. There were no real surprises for most of the book. Black shadows that creep around the scene are already known and are no longer secret. There are also huge portions of Frodo (the Ringbearer) and Sam. And there story is by no means as exciting as the other. I found myself devouring the stories of the other characters and dragging through the story of Frodo and Sam. While I know that some people can quickly read through this book, I found the Frodo and Sam portions almost too much to bear at times. While it was interesting to see things from Sam's perspective on occasion (as this is rarely done in the movie), it was too long.
I would definitely recommend this book. And if you haven't seen the movie, read the book first, as I don't think the movies will be a disappoint as they followed the story pretty closely.
The Morale Of The Story: Reading the book first is usually better to do as the movie, even a good one, could slow the book progress. And when the 80 page introduction is about the type of pipe weed that Hobbit's smoke...skip it.
March 08, 2007
A Bend in the River
A Bend in the River
So I've started reading more regional fiction. This is going to be my first post about a book that doesn't take place in the US. A Bend in the River takes place in Africa, specifically where the river bends.
The narrator leaves home to find his destiny on the other side of Africa. He opens a store and weathers through the various turns of events that his life takes, living as a stranger in a new city, however what the essentials of what makes Africa remain.
I liked this book for two reasons. The first is because the main character left home to find his own way in the world. Looking over my life, I realize that I've had three new starts… moving to Marietta… moving to Athens… and then moving to DC. Although each of these was scary of the unknown at the time, each has been better than the last. I like the fact that the main character knew what he knew, but plunged himself into what he didn't know, just because there was a chance that it was better than the world he did know. Although he's not particularly all that likeable or complex, you can't help but admire his initial lust for the unknown.
The second reason is because it doesn't have a happy ending. It's pretty realistic of how I feel a lot of people's fates are in countries where the governments are so unstable. I tend to take the fact that I live in a country with a stable government for granted, where my life is not going to become a government induced nightmare at any given moment.
Moral of the Story: You'll never know what lies at the Bend in the River if you don't go there yourself.
So I've started reading more regional fiction. This is going to be my first post about a book that doesn't take place in the US. A Bend in the River takes place in Africa, specifically where the river bends.
The narrator leaves home to find his destiny on the other side of Africa. He opens a store and weathers through the various turns of events that his life takes, living as a stranger in a new city, however what the essentials of what makes Africa remain.
I liked this book for two reasons. The first is because the main character left home to find his own way in the world. Looking over my life, I realize that I've had three new starts… moving to Marietta… moving to Athens… and then moving to DC. Although each of these was scary of the unknown at the time, each has been better than the last. I like the fact that the main character knew what he knew, but plunged himself into what he didn't know, just because there was a chance that it was better than the world he did know. Although he's not particularly all that likeable or complex, you can't help but admire his initial lust for the unknown.
The second reason is because it doesn't have a happy ending. It's pretty realistic of how I feel a lot of people's fates are in countries where the governments are so unstable. I tend to take the fact that I live in a country with a stable government for granted, where my life is not going to become a government induced nightmare at any given moment.
Moral of the Story: You'll never know what lies at the Bend in the River if you don't go there yourself.
Sometimes a Great Notion
The panel of 1001 Books is hereby forgiven for not including East of Eden. Although I don't understand why it wasn't included because it is an excellent book that everyone should read, Sometimes a Great Notion had brought the panel back into my good graces. Bygones.
Set in an Oregon backwoods logging country, Sometimes a Great Notion is the story of a not-so prodigal son returning home to seek vengeance on an adulterous older brother. For Leland (the not-so-prodigal son), it's a story of discovering that you are stronger than you think. But there are many other stories within the book, those of Hank, Henry, Faye, Joe-Ben, and others as they come to realize their own truths about themselves and the world.
The book itself started off rather slow, but it's one of those that slowly creeps up on you, and you realize just how engrossed you've become, to the point where randomly, at work, or while driving, you'll be thinking about what the characters are doing next. I realized how much I really liked the book when I read the "blessed day" passage, which was a real turning point in the whole novel, although not terribly significant to the overall plot.
I don't say this lightly, but this book ranks up there on the list of best books I've ever read. Now, if only I could find something to make up for Willard and his Bowling Trophies and Blonde....
Set in an Oregon backwoods logging country, Sometimes a Great Notion is the story of a not-so prodigal son returning home to seek vengeance on an adulterous older brother. For Leland (the not-so-prodigal son), it's a story of discovering that you are stronger than you think. But there are many other stories within the book, those of Hank, Henry, Faye, Joe-Ben, and others as they come to realize their own truths about themselves and the world.
The book itself started off rather slow, but it's one of those that slowly creeps up on you, and you realize just how engrossed you've become, to the point where randomly, at work, or while driving, you'll be thinking about what the characters are doing next. I realized how much I really liked the book when I read the "blessed day" passage, which was a real turning point in the whole novel, although not terribly significant to the overall plot.
I don't say this lightly, but this book ranks up there on the list of best books I've ever read. Now, if only I could find something to make up for Willard and his Bowling Trophies and Blonde....
January 14, 2007
Willard and His Bowling Trophies
Ugh.
Generally, I look for a book to have one of two things to make it "good". They are
- Character Development (or)
- A Plot
Willard and His Bowling Trophies really didn't have much of either. Fortunately it was a short book, and I read it in an afternoon. It's more of a longish short story than anything else. And, even though it's on the list, and I'm supposed to write a review about it, I'm going to have to say that I really don't have much to say about this book. That's how bad it was. The story went nowhere. The characters went nowhere. There was no "aha" moment that drew it all together. It sort of just was... sort of like this post.
Wretched. Absolutely wretched. The word wretched doesn't even describe it.
Moral of the Story: Good things don't always come in small packages.
Just as a note - I am a few posts behind. I have been liking the books I've been reading recently, so look for some good reviews in the next couple of weeks. :-)
Generally, I look for a book to have one of two things to make it "good". They are
- Character Development (or)
- A Plot
Willard and His Bowling Trophies really didn't have much of either. Fortunately it was a short book, and I read it in an afternoon. It's more of a longish short story than anything else. And, even though it's on the list, and I'm supposed to write a review about it, I'm going to have to say that I really don't have much to say about this book. That's how bad it was. The story went nowhere. The characters went nowhere. There was no "aha" moment that drew it all together. It sort of just was... sort of like this post.
Wretched. Absolutely wretched. The word wretched doesn't even describe it.
Moral of the Story: Good things don't always come in small packages.
Just as a note - I am a few posts behind. I have been liking the books I've been reading recently, so look for some good reviews in the next couple of weeks. :-)
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
Really, the Electric Kool Aid Acid Test is the very first book that you should read when you start reading all of the counter culture books. Electric Kool Aid sets the "scene" for the LSD fueled west coast lifestyle that brought us many novels from the 1001 list. Anyway, I read "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey into the Heart of the American Dream" before I read Electric Kool Aid.
So, Hunter S. Thompson, Dr. Gonzo, goes to Las Vegas with his lawyer, a big Samoan man. They spend their time there ( I can't even quantify how much time because the novel is so disjointed) doing every sort of drug imaginable:
"We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, and a whole multi colored collection of uppers, downers, laughers, screamers... Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all that for the trip, but once you get into a serious drug collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge, and I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon. "
Ok. So from an academic perspective, it probably made the list because you can draw certain parallels between the bingeing on drugs to the bingeing on consumer products, which is the ultimate American Dream... acquire as much as you possibly can.
However, that does not by any stretch of the imagination make this a book that anyone should ever read.
Here's what I think happened. I think that Hunter S Thompson thought that it would be funny to go on a bender and write about it. He could perform so called "research" for his book by taking massive quantities of drugs and sell it to a publisher who would publish it, etc etc. Anyway, somewhere along the line, someone was stupid enough to believe that this book was worthy of being a piece of literature and the myth was perpetuated by a series of other individuals (why, I have no clue), until Fear and Loathing ended up being made into a hit movie in 1999 and making it onto the 1001 List. And really - isn't that what the American Dream is really all about? Pulling off the ultimate prank? or, is it a broke down circus that Hunter finds outside of Vegas? I guess we'll never know. Or is it deep within your heart that is ready to explode because you've put every sort of upper and downer imaginable into your mouth and nose?
The book ends with a very definitive sentence which pretty much sums up the whole scene "But it made no different. I was just another fucked up-cleric with a bad heart. Shit, they'll love me down at the Brown Palace. I took another hit off the amyl, and by the time I got to the bar, my heart was full of joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Alger... A Man on the Move, just sick enough to be totally confident."
Moral of the Story: JUST SAY NO
So, Hunter S. Thompson, Dr. Gonzo, goes to Las Vegas with his lawyer, a big Samoan man. They spend their time there ( I can't even quantify how much time because the novel is so disjointed) doing every sort of drug imaginable:
"We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, and a whole multi colored collection of uppers, downers, laughers, screamers... Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all that for the trip, but once you get into a serious drug collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge, and I knew we'd get into that rotten stuff pretty soon. "
Ok. So from an academic perspective, it probably made the list because you can draw certain parallels between the bingeing on drugs to the bingeing on consumer products, which is the ultimate American Dream... acquire as much as you possibly can.
However, that does not by any stretch of the imagination make this a book that anyone should ever read.
Here's what I think happened. I think that Hunter S Thompson thought that it would be funny to go on a bender and write about it. He could perform so called "research" for his book by taking massive quantities of drugs and sell it to a publisher who would publish it, etc etc. Anyway, somewhere along the line, someone was stupid enough to believe that this book was worthy of being a piece of literature and the myth was perpetuated by a series of other individuals (why, I have no clue), until Fear and Loathing ended up being made into a hit movie in 1999 and making it onto the 1001 List. And really - isn't that what the American Dream is really all about? Pulling off the ultimate prank? or, is it a broke down circus that Hunter finds outside of Vegas? I guess we'll never know. Or is it deep within your heart that is ready to explode because you've put every sort of upper and downer imaginable into your mouth and nose?
The book ends with a very definitive sentence which pretty much sums up the whole scene "But it made no different. I was just another fucked up-cleric with a bad heart. Shit, they'll love me down at the Brown Palace. I took another hit off the amyl, and by the time I got to the bar, my heart was full of joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Alger... A Man on the Move, just sick enough to be totally confident."
Moral of the Story: JUST SAY NO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)