Madeline's bookshelf: the-list en-US Tue, 13 Aug 2024 11:08:05 -0700 60 Madeline's bookshelf: the-list 144 41 /images/layout/goodreads_logo_144.jpg Around the World in 80 Days 10128926 In 1872, Phileas Fogg, an English gentleman, bets 20,000 pounds that he can travel around the world in 80 days.  Set in a time when high-speed travel was only a dream this seems to be a challenge which will stretch Fogg’s ingenuity and optimistic nature.

Fogg and his servant, Passepourtout, leave from London, England and travel across four continents on their trip.   In India, they meet a beautiful princess and save her life.  She joins them on the journey and falls in love with Phileas Fogg.

They are followed around the world by Detective Fix, who has mistaken Fogg for a bank robber.  He causes the group lots of trouble and delays, and finally arrests Fogg on the last day of the journey.

]]> 0 Jules Verne 1612980465 Madeline 1 the-list
There are so many other books I want to be reading, and I don't want to force myself to get through this just because it's on The List. So, my apologizes to Mr. Verne, and we'll try again another day.

Also I couldn't stop picturing Steve Coogan as Phileas Fogg and it sort of ruined things for me, which is hardly Verne's fault. ]]> 3.62 1872 Around the World in 80 Days
author: Jules Verne
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.62
book published: 1872
rating: 1
read at: 2011/06/01
date added: 2024/08/13
shelves: the-list
review:
Okay, so technically I've haven't read this one. Not all of it, anyway. To be perfectly honest I got to about the second chapter (I listened to this on audiobook so it's hard to tell - track 9, anyway) and all I could think was, "This is boring. I'm bored now. Still bored."

There are so many other books I want to be reading, and I don't want to force myself to get through this just because it's on The List. So, my apologizes to Mr. Verne, and we'll try again another day.

Also I couldn't stop picturing Steve Coogan as Phileas Fogg and it sort of ruined things for me, which is hardly Verne's fault.
]]> <![CDATA[The Yellow Wallpaper and Other Stories]]> 99300
Written from a feminist perspective, often focusing on the inferior status accorded to women by society, the tales include "turned," an ironic story with a startling twist, in which a husband seduces and impregnates a naĂŻve servant; "Cottagette," concerning the romance of a young artist and a man who's apparently too good to be true; "Mr. Peebles' Heart," a liberating tale of a fiftyish shopkeeper whose sister-in-law, a doctor, persuades him to take a solo trip to Europe, with revivifying results; "The Yellow Wallpaper"; and three other outstanding stories.

These charming tales are not only highly readable and full of humor and invention, but also offer ample food for thought about the social, economic, and personal relationship of men and women � and how they might be improved.

Collects:
—The Yellow Wallpaper
—Three Thanksgivings
—The Cottagette
—TłÜ°ů˛Ô±đ»ĺ
—Making a Change
—If I Were a Man
—Mr. Peebles' Heart]]> 129 Charlotte Perkins Gilman 0486298574 Madeline 4 assigned-reading, the-list advanced placement, thank you verra much), and we spent an entire class period discussing the ending and what the hell happened. I'm still not really sure - the best explanation I could think of was that the narrator hung herself, but that doesn't seem to really explain everything. Must re-read someday.

Read for: 12th grade AP English]]> 4.05 1892 The Yellow Wallpaper and Other Stories
author: Charlotte Perkins Gilman
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.05
book published: 1892
rating: 4
read at: 2007/01/01
date added: 2024/08/07
shelves: assigned-reading, the-list
review:
Creepy as hell, but a really, really cool description of madness. I read this for a high school English class (advanced placement, thank you verra much), and we spent an entire class period discussing the ending and what the hell happened. I'm still not really sure - the best explanation I could think of was that the narrator hung herself, but that doesn't seem to really explain everything. Must re-read someday.

Read for: 12th grade AP English
]]> The Pit and the Pendulum 206173 22 Edgar Allan Poe 1860920195 Madeline 3 the-list 3.94 1842 The Pit and the Pendulum
author: Edgar Allan Poe
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.94
book published: 1842
rating: 3
read at: 2007/01/01
date added: 2024/04/10
shelves: the-list
review:
Pretty cool, but I really don't understand how the managed to make a movie out of it. I'd go to the trouble of finding said movie and watching it to find out, but frankly I can't be bothered. The story is good enough for me.
]]> Lady Chatterley's Lover 49583709
With her soft brown hair, lithe figure and big, wondering eyes, Constance Chatterley is possessed of a certain vitality. Yet she is deeply unhappy; married to an invalid, she is almost as inwardly paralyzed as her husband Clifford is paralyzed below the waist. It is not until she finds refuge in the arms of Mellors the game-keeper, a solitary man of a class apart, that she feels regenerated. Together they move from an outer world of chaos towards an inner world of fulfillment.

For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.]]> 400 D.H. Lawrence 014303961X Madeline 1 the-list, ugh scandalous) but all the stuff in between is, for the most part, ungodly boring. The book gets points for having some very intellectual discussions of class and the differences between men and women, and Lawrence's characters talk about sex with more honesty than any other book I've ever read, but that's about all it has going for it. I was about fifty pages into the book when I realized that I really didn't like either of the title characters (Lady Chatterley and her Lovah), and it didn't get much better from there. Mellors started to grow on me towards the end, when he discovered sarcasm, but Lady Chatterley (aka Connie) was one of the most boring protagonists ever. She was almost completely personality-deficient, and Lawrence worked hard at the beginning to convince us that she was intelligent, a task at which he fails miserably. Example? At one point in the book, when Connie and Mellors have just finished having hot sex and are in bed together, he starts a rant about the class system. Connie's response? She observes that Mellors' chest hair and pubic hair are different colors.
Fascinating.

Basically, the book can be summed up like this: Blah blah SEX blah blah class blah SEX SEX blah blah class England's economy SEX SEX SEX SCANDAL arguement arguement SCANDAL Vacation time! blah blah blah SEX arguement SCANDAL blah blah the end.]]> 3.48 1928 Lady Chatterley's Lover
author: D.H. Lawrence
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.48
book published: 1928
rating: 1
read at: 2009/01/01
date added: 2024/02/27
shelves: the-list, ugh
review:
I honestly think that if this book hadn't been banned for obscene content, no one would have ever read it. Yes, there are lots of sex scenes (omg scandalous) but all the stuff in between is, for the most part, ungodly boring. The book gets points for having some very intellectual discussions of class and the differences between men and women, and Lawrence's characters talk about sex with more honesty than any other book I've ever read, but that's about all it has going for it. I was about fifty pages into the book when I realized that I really didn't like either of the title characters (Lady Chatterley and her Lovah), and it didn't get much better from there. Mellors started to grow on me towards the end, when he discovered sarcasm, but Lady Chatterley (aka Connie) was one of the most boring protagonists ever. She was almost completely personality-deficient, and Lawrence worked hard at the beginning to convince us that she was intelligent, a task at which he fails miserably. Example? At one point in the book, when Connie and Mellors have just finished having hot sex and are in bed together, he starts a rant about the class system. Connie's response? She observes that Mellors' chest hair and pubic hair are different colors.
Fascinating.

Basically, the book can be summed up like this: Blah blah SEX blah blah class blah SEX SEX blah blah class England's economy SEX SEX SEX SCANDAL arguement arguement SCANDAL Vacation time! blah blah blah SEX arguement SCANDAL blah blah the end.
]]> The Shipping News 7354
A vigorous, darkly comic, and at times magical portrait of the contemporary American family, The Shipping News shows why E. Annie Proulx is recognized as one of the most gifted and original writers in America today.
(back cover)]]> 337 Annie Proulx 0743225422 Madeline 2 the-list Hive-spangled, gut roaring with gas and cramp, he survived childhood; at the state university, hand clapped over his chin, he camouflaged torment with smiles and silence. Stumbled through his twenties and into his thirties learning to separate his feelings from his life, counting on nothing. He ate prodigiously, liked a ham knuckle, buttered spuds.
His jobs: distributor of vending machines candy, all-night clerk in a convenience store, a third-rate newspaperman. At thirty-six, bereft, brimming with grief and thwarted love, Quoyle steered away to Newfoundland, the rock that had generated his ancestors, a place that he had never been nor thought to go."

Okay. So obviously this was very well-written and sad and beautiful, and it certainly deserved to win the Pulitzer prize. I can at least appreciate that much, and I'll admit that I didn't dislike the book, particularly. I enjoyed reading it, for the most part. But there is only one word that I think can fully describe this book, and that word is BLEAK.

Everything about this book is bleak. The setting is bleak, the people are bleak, their houses and their food is bleak (they eat fried bologna for God's sake), every life and every situation is bleak. Which is fine, if that's your thing. Personally, I don't especially enjoy reading about miserable people being miserable in a miserable place. It's a nice book, I suppose. It's just not something I want to revisit. ]]> 3.88 1993 The Shipping News
author: Annie Proulx
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.88
book published: 1993
rating: 2
read at: 2010/11/01
date added: 2023/10/31
shelves: the-list
review:
"Here is an account of a few years in the life of Quoyle, born in Brooklyn and raised in a shuffle of dreary upstate towns.
Hive-spangled, gut roaring with gas and cramp, he survived childhood; at the state university, hand clapped over his chin, he camouflaged torment with smiles and silence. Stumbled through his twenties and into his thirties learning to separate his feelings from his life, counting on nothing. He ate prodigiously, liked a ham knuckle, buttered spuds.
His jobs: distributor of vending machines candy, all-night clerk in a convenience store, a third-rate newspaperman. At thirty-six, bereft, brimming with grief and thwarted love, Quoyle steered away to Newfoundland, the rock that had generated his ancestors, a place that he had never been nor thought to go."

Okay. So obviously this was very well-written and sad and beautiful, and it certainly deserved to win the Pulitzer prize. I can at least appreciate that much, and I'll admit that I didn't dislike the book, particularly. I enjoyed reading it, for the most part. But there is only one word that I think can fully describe this book, and that word is BLEAK.

Everything about this book is bleak. The setting is bleak, the people are bleak, their houses and their food is bleak (they eat fried bologna for God's sake), every life and every situation is bleak. Which is fine, if that's your thing. Personally, I don't especially enjoy reading about miserable people being miserable in a miserable place. It's a nice book, I suppose. It's just not something I want to revisit.
]]> War and Peace 656
War and Peace broadly focuses on Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 and follows three of the most well-known characters in literature: Pierre Bezukhov, the illegitimate son of a count who is fighting for his inheritance and yearning for spiritual fulfillment; Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, who leaves his family behind to fight in the war against Napoleon; and Natasha Rostov, the beautiful young daughter of a nobleman who intrigues both men.

As Napoleon’s army invades, Tolstoy brilliantly follows characters from diverse backgrounds—peasants and nobility, civilians and soldiers—as they struggle with the problems unique to their era, their history, and their culture. And as the novel progresses, these characters transcend their specificity, becoming some of the most moving—and human—figures in world literature.


Tolstoy gave his personal approval to this translation, published here in a new single volume edition, which includes an introduction by Henry Gifford, and Tolstoy's important essay `Some Words about War and Peace'.]]> 1392 Leo Tolstoy 0192833987 Madeline 3 historic-fiction, the-list density of this book meant that a) it took me like five months to finish and b) I would dip in and out of it, alternating a few chapters of this with lighter, fluffier fare to balance it out (there's a cozy mystery series that was a godsend during this time - I absolutely hate it but also I'm on like Book 14?).

All this is to say that I read War and Peace in installments, often returning to the story after days away from it, and so I experienced the story in a constant state of mild amnesia. I'm not saying it's the best way to get through an epic with a huge cast of characters, some of whom are related and some of whom are dating and hell if I could remember which was which sometimes (Natasha and Nikolai are siblings because their names both start with N, you're welcome), but it certainly made this book a fun experience. Basically every time I started a new chapter it was like, "Oh, who's this fella? Andrei? Nice to meet you, Andrei! What are we getting up to today?" Repeat for 1,400 pages.

I'm not recommending my method, to be clear. And I'm not saying that it was the correct way to enjoy this novel. Yet enjoy it I did! I certainly will not be revisiting it any time soon, but it was a fun ride while it lasted, and now I can be one of those people who can say they've read War and Peace, which seems to be the main reason anyone reads this book.

Anyway, please enjoy the one passage I bothered to mark so I could quote it later:

"Pierre told her of his adventures as he had never recounted them before, as he had never recalled them even to himself. He saw now, as it were, a new significance in all he had been through. Now that he was telling it all to Natasha he experienced that rare pleasure men know when women are listening to them - not clever women who when they listen either try to remember what they hear for the sake of enriching their minds and, when the opportunity offers, repeat it, or adapt it to some idea of their own, or who promptly contribute their own clever comments elaborated in their own little mental workshops; but the pleasure real women give who are gifted with the faculty of selecting and absorbing all that is best in what a man shows of himself."

RIP Leo Tolstoy, Ĺ·±¦ÓéŔÖ would have given you a fucking aneurysm. ]]> 4.14 1869 War and Peace
author: Leo Tolstoy
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.14
book published: 1869
rating: 3
read at: 2023/07/01
date added: 2023/09/12
shelves: historic-fiction, the-list
review:
The sheer density of this book meant that a) it took me like five months to finish and b) I would dip in and out of it, alternating a few chapters of this with lighter, fluffier fare to balance it out (there's a cozy mystery series that was a godsend during this time - I absolutely hate it but also I'm on like Book 14?).

All this is to say that I read War and Peace in installments, often returning to the story after days away from it, and so I experienced the story in a constant state of mild amnesia. I'm not saying it's the best way to get through an epic with a huge cast of characters, some of whom are related and some of whom are dating and hell if I could remember which was which sometimes (Natasha and Nikolai are siblings because their names both start with N, you're welcome), but it certainly made this book a fun experience. Basically every time I started a new chapter it was like, "Oh, who's this fella? Andrei? Nice to meet you, Andrei! What are we getting up to today?" Repeat for 1,400 pages.

I'm not recommending my method, to be clear. And I'm not saying that it was the correct way to enjoy this novel. Yet enjoy it I did! I certainly will not be revisiting it any time soon, but it was a fun ride while it lasted, and now I can be one of those people who can say they've read War and Peace, which seems to be the main reason anyone reads this book.

Anyway, please enjoy the one passage I bothered to mark so I could quote it later:

"Pierre told her of his adventures as he had never recounted them before, as he had never recalled them even to himself. He saw now, as it were, a new significance in all he had been through. Now that he was telling it all to Natasha he experienced that rare pleasure men know when women are listening to them - not clever women who when they listen either try to remember what they hear for the sake of enriching their minds and, when the opportunity offers, repeat it, or adapt it to some idea of their own, or who promptly contribute their own clever comments elaborated in their own little mental workshops; but the pleasure real women give who are gifted with the faculty of selecting and absorbing all that is best in what a man shows of himself."

RIP Leo Tolstoy, Ĺ·±¦ÓéŔÖ would have given you a fucking aneurysm.
]]> Between the Acts 46105 224 Virginia Woolf 015611870X Madeline 4 the-list
That being said, this book is an almost perfect example of what makes Virginia Woolf such a unique writer. Like her more famous Mrs. Dalloway, the action takes place over a short span of time (two days) and is concerned primarily with the actions of one small family, although the narration takes us into other characters' heads occasionally. The main action of the story takes place during the annual village pageant, a history of England. We see the pageant in detail (Woolf even includes stage directions) and, as the title suggests, get to also witness the spectators during the act breaks.

Reading this, I felt like there was something else hiding under the surface of the text - something I wasn't fully able to grasp or understand. There's an undercurrent of longing and sadness and frustration running through all the characters, and I felt like there was a whole other story happening just in the margins and the line breaks. I think I could read this book ten times and still not find everything Woolf wants me to find.

Halfway through writing this review I decided to change my rating from three to four stars, because I started flipping through the book to find passages to quote and kept remembering what is so extraordinary about Virginia Woolf's writing: she had, I believe, an incredible capacity for empathy. Everyone in her stories gets treated, however briefly, like they're the most important character in the story. Every single character in her books, from the educated landowner to the flighty kitchen maid, has a deep inner life and complex thoughts and emotions, and she makes us see this complexity. No one is ordinary in Virginia Woolf's books.

Plus, the writing is, as always, killer. It's not just the people - something as simple as a lily pond suddenly becomes full of deeper meaning and significance when Woolf is describing it:

"There had always been lilies there, self-sown from wind-dropped seed, floating red and white on the green plates of their leaves. Water, for hundreds of years, had silted down into the hollow, and lay there four or five feet deep over a black cushion of mud. Under the thick plate of green water, glazed in their self-centered world, fish swam - gold, splashed with white, streaked with black or silver. Silently they manoeuvred in their water world, poised in the blue patch made by the sky, or shot silently to the edge where the grass, trembling, made a fringe of nodding shadow. On the water-pavement spiders printed their delicate feet. A grain fell and spiralled down; a petal fell, filled and sank. At that the fleet of boat-shaped bodies paused; poised; equipped; mailed; then with a waver of undulation off they flashed.
It was in that deep centre, in that black heart, that the lady had drowned herself. Ten years since the pool had been dredged and a thigh bone recovered. Alas, it was a sheep’s, not a lady’s. And sheep have no ghosts, for sheep have no souls. But the servants insisted, they must have a ghost; the ghost must be a lady’s; who had drowned herself for love. So none of them would walk by the lily pool at night, only now when the sun shone and the gentry still sat at table."]]> 3.64 1941 Between the Acts
author: Virginia Woolf
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.64
book published: 1941
rating: 4
read at: 2014/01/01
date added: 2023/07/31
shelves: the-list
review:
Maybe it's because this is technically unfinished (a forward from Leonard Woolf states that although the draft was completed, Virginia Woolf died before she was able to make final corrections and revisions, so it was sent to the printers as is), but this one didn't strike me quite in the way Woolf's other books have. But that's not to suggest that it isn't good - remember, this is Virginia Woolf, so when I say that it didn't strike me as much as her other ones, I only mean that this book felt like a minor blow to the head, rather than feeling like I was being remade from the inside out.

That being said, this book is an almost perfect example of what makes Virginia Woolf such a unique writer. Like her more famous Mrs. Dalloway, the action takes place over a short span of time (two days) and is concerned primarily with the actions of one small family, although the narration takes us into other characters' heads occasionally. The main action of the story takes place during the annual village pageant, a history of England. We see the pageant in detail (Woolf even includes stage directions) and, as the title suggests, get to also witness the spectators during the act breaks.

Reading this, I felt like there was something else hiding under the surface of the text - something I wasn't fully able to grasp or understand. There's an undercurrent of longing and sadness and frustration running through all the characters, and I felt like there was a whole other story happening just in the margins and the line breaks. I think I could read this book ten times and still not find everything Woolf wants me to find.

Halfway through writing this review I decided to change my rating from three to four stars, because I started flipping through the book to find passages to quote and kept remembering what is so extraordinary about Virginia Woolf's writing: she had, I believe, an incredible capacity for empathy. Everyone in her stories gets treated, however briefly, like they're the most important character in the story. Every single character in her books, from the educated landowner to the flighty kitchen maid, has a deep inner life and complex thoughts and emotions, and she makes us see this complexity. No one is ordinary in Virginia Woolf's books.

Plus, the writing is, as always, killer. It's not just the people - something as simple as a lily pond suddenly becomes full of deeper meaning and significance when Woolf is describing it:

"There had always been lilies there, self-sown from wind-dropped seed, floating red and white on the green plates of their leaves. Water, for hundreds of years, had silted down into the hollow, and lay there four or five feet deep over a black cushion of mud. Under the thick plate of green water, glazed in their self-centered world, fish swam - gold, splashed with white, streaked with black or silver. Silently they manoeuvred in their water world, poised in the blue patch made by the sky, or shot silently to the edge where the grass, trembling, made a fringe of nodding shadow. On the water-pavement spiders printed their delicate feet. A grain fell and spiralled down; a petal fell, filled and sank. At that the fleet of boat-shaped bodies paused; poised; equipped; mailed; then with a waver of undulation off they flashed.
It was in that deep centre, in that black heart, that the lady had drowned herself. Ten years since the pool had been dredged and a thigh bone recovered. Alas, it was a sheep’s, not a lady’s. And sheep have no ghosts, for sheep have no souls. But the servants insisted, they must have a ghost; the ghost must be a lady’s; who had drowned herself for love. So none of them would walk by the lily pool at night, only now when the sun shone and the gentry still sat at table."
]]> Les Miserables 36377471 One of the first modern novels, Les Misérables took the unprecedented step of featuring a working-class hero and examining society's role in fostering crime and criminal behavior. Its portrait of altruism in the face of misery, poverty, and injustice is memorable for its vivid characterizations and its gripping plot, which unfolds in the manner of a detective story. An instant success around the world upon its initial publication, the book has inspired countless dramatic adaptations, including one of the world's longest-running musicals, and is routinely ranked among the top 100 novels of all time.]]> 1376 Victor Hugo 0486822184 Madeline 5 the-list, historic-fiction Les Miserables.

The other main reason, which will not surprise anyone who's attempted to crack open a Hugo epic, is that this fucker is loooooooooong.

Like. It's so goddamn long. And more often than not, Hugo's lengthy digressions ("Hey, who wants to hear a chapters-long description of the Battle of Waterloo? Nobody? Too bad!") or insistence on giving a full backstory to just about every character who appears in the book are extremely frustrating more often than they're illuminating. Remember how Jean Valjean's story kicks off when he gets caught breaking into a bishop's house and the bishop gives him the silver candlesticks? In the musical version it's one scene. In the book, you have to get through the bishop's entire life story before he gets to give Valjean the candlesticks and complete his one (1) task in the whole novel.

This book, in other words, is not for the faint of heart or short of patience. But here's the thing: Victor Hugo is the master of the long game. There is a reason he makes you learn everything about the bishop, so we can understand exactly why he gives Valjean the candlesticks. He makes us sit through multiple chapters about Waterloo because it's going to come back around to Marius, and we need that entire backstory. He makes us wait while he describes the history of the Parisian sewers, because when he sets a crucial scene there he wants to make sure we can see it, and understand the geography of the setting and its dangers. And yes, he goes on lengthy digressions where he discusses stuff like the fall of empires, but you can't even get that annoyed with him when his random digressions sound like this:

"Darkness enwraps condemned civilizations. They sprung a leak, then they sank. We have nothing more to say; and it is with a sort of terror that we look on, at the bottom of that sea which is called the past, behind those colossal waves, at the shipwreck of those immense vessels, Babylon, Nineveh, Tarsus, Thebes, Rome, beneath the fearful gusts which emerge from all the mouths of the shadows. But shadows are there, and light is here. We are not acquainted with the maladies of these ancient civilizations, we do not know the infirmities of our own. Everywhere upon it we have the right of light, we contemplate its beauties, we lay bare its defects. Where it is ill, we probe; and the sickness once diagnosed, the study of the cause leads to the discovery of the remedy. Our civilization, the work of twenty centuries, is its law and its prodigy; it is worth the trouble of saving. It will be saved."

It's a slog, but Les Miserables rewards the patient reader. Ultimately, this is a heart-wrenching epic that covers hundreds of characters and decades of time, and makes you wade through chapters and chapters of what seems like random information, but Hugo knits it all together and by the end you understand that every single digression and every minor character played a crucial role in the final product. It's beautiful and frustrating and exciting and boring and tragic and funny, and you won't regret giving it the time it deserves.

"These felicities are the true ones. There is no joy outside of these joys. Love is the only ecstasy. All the rest weeps.
To love, or to have loved - this suffices. Demand nothing more. There is no other pearl to be found in the shadowy folds of life. To love is a fulfillment."]]> 4.38 1862 Les Miserables
author: Victor Hugo
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.38
book published: 1862
rating: 5
read at: 2021/12/01
date added: 2022/02/28
shelves: the-list, historic-fiction
review:
I had kind of a weird journey with this one. I never sat down with a physical paper-and-ink copy of the novel; instead I had it downloaded as a free ebook on my phone. I would read a few pages while I was waiting for the bus, or if there was downtime at work, but otherwise I didn't focus too much of my energy on finishing the book. This is probably why it took me, I estimate, about five years to read Les Miserables.

The other main reason, which will not surprise anyone who's attempted to crack open a Hugo epic, is that this fucker is loooooooooong.

Like. It's so goddamn long. And more often than not, Hugo's lengthy digressions ("Hey, who wants to hear a chapters-long description of the Battle of Waterloo? Nobody? Too bad!") or insistence on giving a full backstory to just about every character who appears in the book are extremely frustrating more often than they're illuminating. Remember how Jean Valjean's story kicks off when he gets caught breaking into a bishop's house and the bishop gives him the silver candlesticks? In the musical version it's one scene. In the book, you have to get through the bishop's entire life story before he gets to give Valjean the candlesticks and complete his one (1) task in the whole novel.

This book, in other words, is not for the faint of heart or short of patience. But here's the thing: Victor Hugo is the master of the long game. There is a reason he makes you learn everything about the bishop, so we can understand exactly why he gives Valjean the candlesticks. He makes us sit through multiple chapters about Waterloo because it's going to come back around to Marius, and we need that entire backstory. He makes us wait while he describes the history of the Parisian sewers, because when he sets a crucial scene there he wants to make sure we can see it, and understand the geography of the setting and its dangers. And yes, he goes on lengthy digressions where he discusses stuff like the fall of empires, but you can't even get that annoyed with him when his random digressions sound like this:

"Darkness enwraps condemned civilizations. They sprung a leak, then they sank. We have nothing more to say; and it is with a sort of terror that we look on, at the bottom of that sea which is called the past, behind those colossal waves, at the shipwreck of those immense vessels, Babylon, Nineveh, Tarsus, Thebes, Rome, beneath the fearful gusts which emerge from all the mouths of the shadows. But shadows are there, and light is here. We are not acquainted with the maladies of these ancient civilizations, we do not know the infirmities of our own. Everywhere upon it we have the right of light, we contemplate its beauties, we lay bare its defects. Where it is ill, we probe; and the sickness once diagnosed, the study of the cause leads to the discovery of the remedy. Our civilization, the work of twenty centuries, is its law and its prodigy; it is worth the trouble of saving. It will be saved."

It's a slog, but Les Miserables rewards the patient reader. Ultimately, this is a heart-wrenching epic that covers hundreds of characters and decades of time, and makes you wade through chapters and chapters of what seems like random information, but Hugo knits it all together and by the end you understand that every single digression and every minor character played a crucial role in the final product. It's beautiful and frustrating and exciting and boring and tragic and funny, and you won't regret giving it the time it deserves.

"These felicities are the true ones. There is no joy outside of these joys. Love is the only ecstasy. All the rest weeps.
To love, or to have loved - this suffices. Demand nothing more. There is no other pearl to be found in the shadowy folds of life. To love is a fulfillment."
]]> The Once and Future King 43545 639 T.H. White 0441627404 Madeline 4 fantasy, the-list The Green Knight is what piqued my interest in TH White's retelling of Arthurian legends, but that's only partially true. The truth is that this book has been at the back of my mind as one of those "to read one of these days" books ever since I saw Magento reading The Once and Future King in X-2: X-Men United. Just in case anyone was getting any funny ideas about me being some kind of serious reviewer.

White's story is about the life of King Arthur, from his lowly origins as an orphan boy called "the wart", to the glory days of the Round Table and the knights he surrounded himself with, to the fall of his kingdom. I had read two other retellings of the King Arthur legend before this - Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, which White references often; and Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon - and White's version of events puts both of those epics to shame. His version of King Arthur's story is equal parts tragic and funny (the first installment, which is about Arthur as a child being tutored by Merlin, is especially hilarious thanks to White's ear for zippy, clever dialogue and voice), and all of it is beautiful.

TH White's story mainly grapples with the why behind King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table: the idea that Arthur, thanks to his early education with Merlin, set out to bring his world out of the dark ages and into a more enlightened age, and how even with the best intentions, plans don't always go the way you want them to. This is most clearly illustrated in White's portrayal of the doomed Lancelot/Guinevere romance - these characters fall from grace not because they're bad people, but because they're good. Ultimately, everything falls apart because the characters are good people trying to do the right thing, and TH White correctly understood that this is a much more tragic and interesting story than just Good vs Evil (although of course the book has plenty of that, too).

"[Arthur] was a kind, conscientious, peace-loving fellow, who had been afflicted in his youth by a tutor of genius. Between the two of them they had worked out their theory that killing people, and being a tyrant over them, was wrong. To stop this sort of thing they had invented the idea of the Table - a vague idea like democracy, or sportsmanship, or morals - and now, in the effort to impose a world of peace, he found himself up to the elbows in blood. When he was feeling healthy he did not grieve much, because he knew the dilemma was inevitable - but in weak moments he was persecuted by shame and indecision. He was one of the first Nordic men who had invented civilization, or who had desired to do otherwise than Attila the Hun had done, and the battle against chaos sometimes did not seem to be worth fighting. He often thought that it might have been better for all his dead soldiers to be alive - even if they had lived under tyranny and madness - rather than be quite dead."

]]> 4.07 1958 The Once and Future King
author: T.H. White
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.07
book published: 1958
rating: 4
read at: 2022/01/01
date added: 2022/01/10
shelves: fantasy, the-list
review:
I'd like to say that the movie The Green Knight is what piqued my interest in TH White's retelling of Arthurian legends, but that's only partially true. The truth is that this book has been at the back of my mind as one of those "to read one of these days" books ever since I saw Magento reading The Once and Future King in X-2: X-Men United. Just in case anyone was getting any funny ideas about me being some kind of serious reviewer.

White's story is about the life of King Arthur, from his lowly origins as an orphan boy called "the wart", to the glory days of the Round Table and the knights he surrounded himself with, to the fall of his kingdom. I had read two other retellings of the King Arthur legend before this - Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, which White references often; and Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Mists of Avalon - and White's version of events puts both of those epics to shame. His version of King Arthur's story is equal parts tragic and funny (the first installment, which is about Arthur as a child being tutored by Merlin, is especially hilarious thanks to White's ear for zippy, clever dialogue and voice), and all of it is beautiful.

TH White's story mainly grapples with the why behind King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table: the idea that Arthur, thanks to his early education with Merlin, set out to bring his world out of the dark ages and into a more enlightened age, and how even with the best intentions, plans don't always go the way you want them to. This is most clearly illustrated in White's portrayal of the doomed Lancelot/Guinevere romance - these characters fall from grace not because they're bad people, but because they're good. Ultimately, everything falls apart because the characters are good people trying to do the right thing, and TH White correctly understood that this is a much more tragic and interesting story than just Good vs Evil (although of course the book has plenty of that, too).

"[Arthur] was a kind, conscientious, peace-loving fellow, who had been afflicted in his youth by a tutor of genius. Between the two of them they had worked out their theory that killing people, and being a tyrant over them, was wrong. To stop this sort of thing they had invented the idea of the Table - a vague idea like democracy, or sportsmanship, or morals - and now, in the effort to impose a world of peace, he found himself up to the elbows in blood. When he was feeling healthy he did not grieve much, because he knew the dilemma was inevitable - but in weak moments he was persecuted by shame and indecision. He was one of the first Nordic men who had invented civilization, or who had desired to do otherwise than Attila the Hun had done, and the battle against chaos sometimes did not seem to be worth fighting. He often thought that it might have been better for all his dead soldiers to be alive - even if they had lived under tyranny and madness - rather than be quite dead."


]]> Dangerous Liasons 45016250 418 Pierre Choderlos de Laclos Madeline 2 the-list, the-movie-is-better also knew that this was a trope that I, historically, have not had the best time with - see Dracula and Where'd You Go, Bernadette. I knew there was a risk of this feeling like a bit of a slog.

I was not prepared for 400 pages of, yes, just letters. And I know that's the point of the book, that we're hearing all of this secondhand gossip - and if nothing else, Laclos's novel is a great exercise in the art of the unreliable narrator - but reading this really solidified why I can never get on board with novels that are written exclusively as a series of letters or diary entries: the letter format of Dangerous Liasons means that we as the reader are two steps removed from the action of the story, listening to Laclos recount what his characters are recounting. One of the most popular pieces of writing advice is to avoid the passive voice; Dangerous Liasons is an entire novel of passive voice. And Laclos even unwittingly reveals the flaw in his format when Merteuil is recounting her tricks of the trade and says, "Never write anything down." Then why am I reading an entire book where she writes down all the evil shit she does?!

The letters of Valmont and Merteuil are the only truly interesting ones in the bunch, as well. I was well and truly sick of Madame de Tourvel by her third letter, and her unvarying schtick of "oh Valmont, please stop asking me to sleep with you no really I musn't" never elevates her beyond anything more than a plot device in the story. Cecile, at least, is a little more dynamic, but honestly I only ever wanted to hear from Valmont and Merteuil, those glorious toxic fremenies.

I have no qualms about telling anyone considering this book to skip it and just watch the John Malkovich/Glenn Close movie adaption, or even Cruel Intentions, and you nerds can fight me about it if you want.]]> 3.98 1782 Dangerous Liasons
author: Pierre Choderlos de Laclos
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.98
book published: 1782
rating: 2
read at: 2021/03/01
date added: 2021/04/08
shelves: the-list, the-movie-is-better
review:
I knew going into this novel that it was written as a collection of letters exchanged between the principal characters. I also knew that this was a trope that I, historically, have not had the best time with - see Dracula and Where'd You Go, Bernadette. I knew there was a risk of this feeling like a bit of a slog.

I was not prepared for 400 pages of, yes, just letters. And I know that's the point of the book, that we're hearing all of this secondhand gossip - and if nothing else, Laclos's novel is a great exercise in the art of the unreliable narrator - but reading this really solidified why I can never get on board with novels that are written exclusively as a series of letters or diary entries: the letter format of Dangerous Liasons means that we as the reader are two steps removed from the action of the story, listening to Laclos recount what his characters are recounting. One of the most popular pieces of writing advice is to avoid the passive voice; Dangerous Liasons is an entire novel of passive voice. And Laclos even unwittingly reveals the flaw in his format when Merteuil is recounting her tricks of the trade and says, "Never write anything down." Then why am I reading an entire book where she writes down all the evil shit she does?!

The letters of Valmont and Merteuil are the only truly interesting ones in the bunch, as well. I was well and truly sick of Madame de Tourvel by her third letter, and her unvarying schtick of "oh Valmont, please stop asking me to sleep with you no really I musn't" never elevates her beyond anything more than a plot device in the story. Cecile, at least, is a little more dynamic, but honestly I only ever wanted to hear from Valmont and Merteuil, those glorious toxic fremenies.

I have no qualms about telling anyone considering this book to skip it and just watch the John Malkovich/Glenn Close movie adaption, or even Cruel Intentions, and you nerds can fight me about it if you want.
]]> <![CDATA[Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, #2)]]> 83346 228 Lewis Carroll 0688120490 Madeline 3
The book was pretty fun, basically the same stuff we saw in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. When I saw the movie Coraline it kind of reminded me of this book - the whole idea of passing into another realm where everything appears to be the same, but is really completely different. Of course, Coraline makes it very clear that this alternate world is bad news (unlike Alice's alternate universe, which is all fun and games and math puzzles and Lewis Carroll disguised as a knight). Makes me wonder if Coraline was Neil Gaiman's response to Wonderland. ]]> 4.05 1871 Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, #2)
author: Lewis Carroll
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.05
book published: 1871
rating: 3
read at: 2008/01/01
date added: 2018/12/01
shelves: the-list, fantasy, kids-and-young-adult
review:
Apparently Lewis Carroll wrote this book while teaching the real Alice Liddel to play chess. Makes me wish I knew how to play.

The book was pretty fun, basically the same stuff we saw in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. When I saw the movie Coraline it kind of reminded me of this book - the whole idea of passing into another realm where everything appears to be the same, but is really completely different. Of course, Coraline makes it very clear that this alternate world is bad news (unlike Alice's alternate universe, which is all fun and games and math puzzles and Lewis Carroll disguised as a knight). Makes me wonder if Coraline was Neil Gaiman's response to Wonderland.
]]> Pride and Prejudice 1886 This is an alternative cover edition for ISBN 9780141439518

Since its immediate success in 1813, Pride and Prejudice has remained one of the most popular novels in the English language. Jane Austen called this brilliant work "her own darling child" and its vivacious heroine, Elizabeth Bennet, "as delightful a creature as ever appeared in print." The romantic clash between the opinionated Elizabeth and her proud beau, Mr. Darcy, is a splendid performance of civilized sparring. And Jane Austen's radiant wit sparkles as her characters dance a delicate quadrille of flirtation and intrigue, making this book the most superb comedy of manners of Regency England.]]> 367 Jane Austen Madeline 3 the-list, assigned-reading funny and her dry but amusing narration makes Pride and Prejudice much more fun than Jane Eyre. Elizabeth Bennett is actually interesting, and her love interest Darcy (don't act like I gave the plot away there; we all know how it ends) is still likeable despite being snotty and emo most of the time. Overall, pretty entertaining.

Read for: 12th grade AP English]]> 4.29 1813 Pride and Prejudice
author: Jane Austen
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.29
book published: 1813
rating: 3
read at:
date added: 2017/02/14
shelves: the-list, assigned-reading
review:
Unlike Charlotte Bronte, Jane Austen is actually funny and her dry but amusing narration makes Pride and Prejudice much more fun than Jane Eyre. Elizabeth Bennett is actually interesting, and her love interest Darcy (don't act like I gave the plot away there; we all know how it ends) is still likeable despite being snotty and emo most of the time. Overall, pretty entertaining.

Read for: 12th grade AP English
]]> The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle 11275
In a Tokyo suburb a young man named Toru Okada searches for his wife's missing cat. Soon he finds himself looking for his wife as well in a netherworld that lies beneath the placid surface of Tokyo. As these searches intersect, Okada encounters a bizarre group of allies and antagonists: a psychic prostitute; a malevolent yet mediagenic politician; a cheerfully morbid sixteen-year-old-girl; and an aging war veteran who has been permanently changed by the hideous things he witnessed during Japan's forgotten campaign in Manchuria.

Gripping, prophetic, suffused with comedy and menace, The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle is a tour de force equal in scope to the masterpieces of Mishima and Pynchon.]]> 607 Haruki Murakami 0965341984 Madeline 2 the-list
The storytelling is great, and even if I had issues with some of the characters (okay, all of the female characters), they all managed to be consistently compelling. But I just couldn't get into this one. The story, while interesting, sort of meandered around and by the end, it seems to have forgotten where it was trying to go in the first place. Murakami starts plot points, presents us with new mysteries and characters, and then he gets distracted by something and forgets to resolve the stuff he told us would be important. I tried to start this review by summarizing the plot, but then I realized I couldn't. So that's probably not a good sign.

And of course, it turns out that Murakami is not a male novelist, he is a . First there was the little spurts of misogyny that kept popping up, and then there was May Kashahara, who is sort of a like a Lolita/Manic Pixie Dreamgirl monster. She is inexplicably attracted to our hero, because obviously, and she says supremely irritating Manic Pixie Dreamgirl things like "People like me don't get along well with dictionaries" which, aside from being one of the most annoying sentences I've ever read, also makes no fucking sense. She makes Natalie Portman in Garden State look realistic and grounded.

I'm glad I finally read this, because I've been meaning to read Murakami for years. But it's going to be a long time before I can be persuaded to pick up another one of his books again.

Be sure to buy my album, Murakami Can't Write Women For Shit, on your way out. We have t-shirts too.]]> 4.16 1994 The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle
author: Haruki Murakami
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.16
book published: 1994
rating: 2
read at: 2015/01/01
date added: 2016/10/23
shelves: the-list
review:
I wanted to like this book more than I actually did.

The storytelling is great, and even if I had issues with some of the characters (okay, all of the female characters), they all managed to be consistently compelling. But I just couldn't get into this one. The story, while interesting, sort of meandered around and by the end, it seems to have forgotten where it was trying to go in the first place. Murakami starts plot points, presents us with new mysteries and characters, and then he gets distracted by something and forgets to resolve the stuff he told us would be important. I tried to start this review by summarizing the plot, but then I realized I couldn't. So that's probably not a good sign.

And of course, it turns out that Murakami is not a male novelist, he is a . First there was the little spurts of misogyny that kept popping up, and then there was May Kashahara, who is sort of a like a Lolita/Manic Pixie Dreamgirl monster. She is inexplicably attracted to our hero, because obviously, and she says supremely irritating Manic Pixie Dreamgirl things like "People like me don't get along well with dictionaries" which, aside from being one of the most annoying sentences I've ever read, also makes no fucking sense. She makes Natalie Portman in Garden State look realistic and grounded.

I'm glad I finally read this, because I've been meaning to read Murakami for years. But it's going to be a long time before I can be persuaded to pick up another one of his books again.

Be sure to buy my album, Murakami Can't Write Women For Shit, on your way out. We have t-shirts too.
]]> The House of Mirth 17728
Lily Bart, beautiful, witty and sophisticated, is accepted by â€old moneyâ€� and courted by the growing tribe of nouveaux riches. But as she nears thirty, her foothold becomes precarious; a poor girl with expensive tastes, she needs a husband to preserve her social standing and to maintain her in the luxury she has come to expect. Whilst many have sought her, something â€� fastidiousness or integrity- prevents her from making a â€suitableâ€� match.]]> 351 Edith Wharton 1844082938 Madeline 4 the-list The House of Mirth is the third Wharton novel I've finished so far, and while reading it, I was able to figure out why I love her books so much. Edith Wharton is witty, and her writing is beautiful, but more importantly, she is honest and realistic. She portrays rich, spoiled society exactly as it is - full of people who hide their own misery behind lavish homes and strict manners - and condemns it, but even as her characters realize how toxic this environment is, they are still driven by an insatiable need to belong to and be accepted by society. Basically what I'm saying is that Edith Wharton understood human nature better than almost any author I've ever read, and if she were alive today Mean Girls would totally be her favorite movie.

The House of Mirth follows Lily Bart, a young woman who grew up wealthy but lost everything when she was a teenager, and has been clawing and fighting to keep her place in society ever since. Lily Bart is clever and charming, but after spending years living independently, she finds herself approaching spinsterhood with dwindling prospects. The book follows her increasingly-desperate attempts to secure her future while retaining her independence and her place in society. If you've read even one other Wharton novel, you know that these desires are not compatible for women in this world.

As always, Wharton's depiction of the tiny battles that occur every day in polite society is fascinating - it's amazing to watch Lily navigate her life with careful planning and strategy, so simple conversations become as complicated and dangerous as naval battles. She has to be constantly on the alert, hyper-aware that she's always one mistake away from total failure and ruin. Only two things frustrated me about this book - one wasn't Wharton's fault, but the second one totally was.

It's not Wharton's fault, I realize, that Lily Bart can't get a Hollywood happy ending and marry Lawrence Selden, who is so obviously perfect for her that it was all I could do not to scream at the pages "kiss her kiss her KISS HER" every time they had a scene together. The couple is headed for a typically Wharton-style ending, but at least that means we get lots of great scenes where the characters are just drowning in sexual tension, and it's like crack to me. Edith Wharton could write a straight-up sex scene, and it still wouldn't be as hot as two characters taking a walk together while resisting the urge to make out.

Like I said, the ending is very, very Wharton, and unfortunately it's also very clearly telegraphed. [spoilers removed] But somehow the fact that I could see the ending a mile away made the book even more tragic and dramatic. But seriously, Seldon - nut up and marry her, for Christ's sake.

Lily Bart is the quintessential Wharton heroine. She is independent, headstrong, whip-smart, and charismatic. Another author would have allowed her heroine to strike out on her own, say to hell with these rich snobs and let Lily go off on adventures to Africa or something, but Wharton knows better. The world of the wealthy, spoiled New Yorker is the only one Lily has ever known, and like Newland Archer and Annabel St. George before her, she will sacrifice her own happiness in exchange for social acceptance and security. This is what drives Wharton's protagonists: a deep need to belong, and a fear of the unknown. They can never win, but it's fascinating to watch them try. ]]> 3.97 1905 The House of Mirth
author: Edith Wharton
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.97
book published: 1905
rating: 4
read at: 2015/04/01
date added: 2016/10/23
shelves: the-list
review:
The House of Mirth is the third Wharton novel I've finished so far, and while reading it, I was able to figure out why I love her books so much. Edith Wharton is witty, and her writing is beautiful, but more importantly, she is honest and realistic. She portrays rich, spoiled society exactly as it is - full of people who hide their own misery behind lavish homes and strict manners - and condemns it, but even as her characters realize how toxic this environment is, they are still driven by an insatiable need to belong to and be accepted by society. Basically what I'm saying is that Edith Wharton understood human nature better than almost any author I've ever read, and if she were alive today Mean Girls would totally be her favorite movie.

The House of Mirth follows Lily Bart, a young woman who grew up wealthy but lost everything when she was a teenager, and has been clawing and fighting to keep her place in society ever since. Lily Bart is clever and charming, but after spending years living independently, she finds herself approaching spinsterhood with dwindling prospects. The book follows her increasingly-desperate attempts to secure her future while retaining her independence and her place in society. If you've read even one other Wharton novel, you know that these desires are not compatible for women in this world.

As always, Wharton's depiction of the tiny battles that occur every day in polite society is fascinating - it's amazing to watch Lily navigate her life with careful planning and strategy, so simple conversations become as complicated and dangerous as naval battles. She has to be constantly on the alert, hyper-aware that she's always one mistake away from total failure and ruin. Only two things frustrated me about this book - one wasn't Wharton's fault, but the second one totally was.

It's not Wharton's fault, I realize, that Lily Bart can't get a Hollywood happy ending and marry Lawrence Selden, who is so obviously perfect for her that it was all I could do not to scream at the pages "kiss her kiss her KISS HER" every time they had a scene together. The couple is headed for a typically Wharton-style ending, but at least that means we get lots of great scenes where the characters are just drowning in sexual tension, and it's like crack to me. Edith Wharton could write a straight-up sex scene, and it still wouldn't be as hot as two characters taking a walk together while resisting the urge to make out.

Like I said, the ending is very, very Wharton, and unfortunately it's also very clearly telegraphed. [spoilers removed] But somehow the fact that I could see the ending a mile away made the book even more tragic and dramatic. But seriously, Seldon - nut up and marry her, for Christ's sake.

Lily Bart is the quintessential Wharton heroine. She is independent, headstrong, whip-smart, and charismatic. Another author would have allowed her heroine to strike out on her own, say to hell with these rich snobs and let Lily go off on adventures to Africa or something, but Wharton knows better. The world of the wealthy, spoiled New Yorker is the only one Lily has ever known, and like Newland Archer and Annabel St. George before her, she will sacrifice her own happiness in exchange for social acceptance and security. This is what drives Wharton's protagonists: a deep need to belong, and a fear of the unknown. They can never win, but it's fascinating to watch them try.
]]> <![CDATA[The Interesting Narrative and Other Writings]]> 7095750 432 Olaudah Equiano 1101089059 Madeline 3
So many negative reviews of this book on Ĺ·±¦ÓéŔÖ! I'm a little surprised, actually. Yes, it drags on for long stretches at a time while Equiano regales us with boring naval stories and tells us everything about his spiritual conversion, but what people are missing, I think, is that he's including these stories for a reason. He was writing for a white, male, upper-class audience in the 18th century, and those readers probably wouldn't have been too interested in reading 200 pages on why slavery is wrong and they're total assholes for supporting it. So Equiano throws in all the seafaring crap to keep his audience interested, and also prove what a loyal British subject he is. The religion aspect is the same thing: no one wants to listen to a heathen, so Equiano makes it clear that he's a devout Christian, and then uses scripture and Christian doctrine to support his arguments against slavery. All the boring parts are, in fact, a calculated effort to get more people to read his book and listen to what he has to say. (that doesn't make it much more interesting to read in the 21st century, of course, but you can't win them all)

And now, we discuss the ESCANDALO surrounding this book:
Okay, so in the book Equiano mentions that when he lived in the American colonies he was baptized as Gustavus Vassa. There is a record of this baptism, but this is what it says: "Gustavus Vassa - a Black born in Carolina 12 years old." Then, one of the ships Equiano worked on has a record of a crew member named "Gust. Weston" or "Gust. Feston" of "S. Carolina."

After scholars found this, there was an immediate academic shitstorm because omg Equiano might not actually have been born in Africa at all! This (very flimsy, in my opinion) piece of evidence has been enough for some people to disregard the book entirely, because if Equiano is a liar then why should we listen to anything he has to say?

At the risk of editorializing, these people are idiots. My class read a very good, very angry article by Cathy Davidson where she rips this argument apart, and basically boils it down to three main points: 1) Equiano's master might have had a very good reason for saying that he was born in the colonies rather than Africa, so they wrote that on the baptism record; similarly, it may have been easier for Equiano to say that he was born in South Carolina. Thousands of immigrants have done similar things, and it doesn't make them liars. 2) If Equiano was born in America and never made the Middle Passage, that doesn't mean his account of it isn't true because he could have heard about it from another slave. 3) If Equiano was in fact born in America, that doesn't diminish the importance of his narrative at all. In fact, it gives the book even greater significance because it means that the first American novelist was black. That fact alone means that this book should not be disregarded because it might not be entirely factual - whether or not Equiano was entirely truthful in his book is not the point at all.

Read for: Colonial Imagination]]> 3.04 1789 The Interesting Narrative and Other Writings
author: Olaudah Equiano
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.04
book published: 1789
rating: 3
read at: 2011/04/01
date added: 2016/09/22
shelves: assigned-reading, history-nonfiction, the-list, memoir
review:
Generally regarded as one of the best slave narratives ever written, the book is Equiano describing his life, beginning with how he was kidnapped in Africa at age 11 and sold into slavery. The interesting thing about this book is that Equiano doesn't just survive the Middle Passage, but actually crosses the Atlantic multiple times, traveling from South America to England to the American Colonies to the Caribbean to the Middle East, all while trying to win his freedom. It's a passionate anti-slavery message, with Equiano unflinchingly recounting the horrors of the slave trade to make his readers cringe (I defy you to read his account of the Middle Passage, or how he mentions seeing 9 year old African girls raped by white men, without wanting to throw up) and making reasoned arguments against it. Whether or not the account is fully non-fiction (and I'll get to that), the fact remains that this is a very affecting story.

So many negative reviews of this book on Ĺ·±¦ÓéŔÖ! I'm a little surprised, actually. Yes, it drags on for long stretches at a time while Equiano regales us with boring naval stories and tells us everything about his spiritual conversion, but what people are missing, I think, is that he's including these stories for a reason. He was writing for a white, male, upper-class audience in the 18th century, and those readers probably wouldn't have been too interested in reading 200 pages on why slavery is wrong and they're total assholes for supporting it. So Equiano throws in all the seafaring crap to keep his audience interested, and also prove what a loyal British subject he is. The religion aspect is the same thing: no one wants to listen to a heathen, so Equiano makes it clear that he's a devout Christian, and then uses scripture and Christian doctrine to support his arguments against slavery. All the boring parts are, in fact, a calculated effort to get more people to read his book and listen to what he has to say. (that doesn't make it much more interesting to read in the 21st century, of course, but you can't win them all)

And now, we discuss the ESCANDALO surrounding this book:
Okay, so in the book Equiano mentions that when he lived in the American colonies he was baptized as Gustavus Vassa. There is a record of this baptism, but this is what it says: "Gustavus Vassa - a Black born in Carolina 12 years old." Then, one of the ships Equiano worked on has a record of a crew member named "Gust. Weston" or "Gust. Feston" of "S. Carolina."

After scholars found this, there was an immediate academic shitstorm because omg Equiano might not actually have been born in Africa at all! This (very flimsy, in my opinion) piece of evidence has been enough for some people to disregard the book entirely, because if Equiano is a liar then why should we listen to anything he has to say?

At the risk of editorializing, these people are idiots. My class read a very good, very angry article by Cathy Davidson where she rips this argument apart, and basically boils it down to three main points: 1) Equiano's master might have had a very good reason for saying that he was born in the colonies rather than Africa, so they wrote that on the baptism record; similarly, it may have been easier for Equiano to say that he was born in South Carolina. Thousands of immigrants have done similar things, and it doesn't make them liars. 2) If Equiano was born in America and never made the Middle Passage, that doesn't mean his account of it isn't true because he could have heard about it from another slave. 3) If Equiano was in fact born in America, that doesn't diminish the importance of his narrative at all. In fact, it gives the book even greater significance because it means that the first American novelist was black. That fact alone means that this book should not be disregarded because it might not be entirely factual - whether or not Equiano was entirely truthful in his book is not the point at all.

Read for: Colonial Imagination
]]> Out of Africa 781787 Out of Africa is Isak Dinesen's memoir of her years in Africa, from 1914 to 1931, on a four-thousand-acre coffee plantation in the hills near Nairobi. She had come to Kenya from Denmark with her husband, and when they separated she stayed on to manage the farm by herself, visited frequently by her lover, the big-game hunter Denys Finch-Hatton, for whom she would make up stories "like Scheherazade." In Africa, "I learned how to tell tales," she recalled many years later. "The natives have an ear still. I told stories constantly to them, all kinds." Her account of her African adventures, written after she had lost her beloved farm and returned to Denmark, is that of a master storyteller, a woman whom John Updike called "one of the most picturesque and flamboyant literary personalities of the century."

Isak Dinesen (1885�1962) was born Karen Christence Dinesen in Rungsted, Denmark. She wrote poems, plays, and stories from an early age, including Seven Gothic Tales, Winter's Tales, Last Tales, Anecdotes of Destiny, Shadows on the Grass and Ehrengard. Out of Africa is considered her masterpiece.]]> 401 Isak Dinesen 0679600213 Madeline 3 the-list, memoir
In A Moveable Feast, Hemingway called Out of Africa one of the best books written on Africa that he'd ever read. Based on this recommendation, and the fact that it's on The List, I decided to give the book a try.

First thoughts: I can see why Hemingway liked it so much, since a good portion of the story is hunting-related. I imagine Hemingway would have even given Twilight a positive review if it had at least three scenes where the heroine shoots a lion. Aside from all the hunting stories, the writing in the book is truly gorgeous, and Blixen's descriptions of Africa are definitely worth the praise they've been given. She's at her best when writing about incredibly sad subjects, like how her farm went under and she had to sell off her possessions one by one, and my favorite mini-story in the whole book was about Blixen seeing a pair of giraffes about to be shipped off to a zoo in Europe, and ends: "As to us, we shall have to find someone badly trangressing against us, before we can in decency ask the Giraffes to forgive us our transgressions against them."

Things get a bit hairy, however, whenever Blixen is describing the actual people in Africa. Her view of the Natives (always capitalized) is perfectly appropriate for her time period, but will make 21st-century readers a little uncomfortable. She's fond of making impossibly broad generalizations about Africans ("All Natives are gamblers") and often compares them to some wild animal in order to explain their behavior to her white readers. It's historically accurate, of course, but she sometimes comes off sounding like your pretentious friend who studied abroad in South America for a semester and always tells people that Chile is actually pronounced "Cheel-ay."

The focus of the book is Africa, only, to the extent that Blixen absolutely refuses to tell us anything else. Did you know that her husband gave her syphillis, or that she later carried on a long affair with Denys Finch-Hatton? I do, but only because the book's introduction told me. There's very little of Blixen's personal life in this book, and very few of her thoughts that don't relate to Africa. Africa, and everything it meant to Blixen during her time there, is the main character in this book, and there isn't much room left for anything else. ]]> 3.94 1937 Out of Africa
author: Isak Dinesen
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.94
book published: 1937
rating: 3
read at: 2011/06/01
date added: 2015/12/16
shelves: the-list, memoir
review:
"Looking back on a sojourn in the African highlands, you are struck by your feeling of having lived for a time up in the air. The sky was rarely more than pale blue or violet, with a profusion of mighty, weightless, ever-changing clouds towering up and sailing on it, but it has a blue vigour in it, and at a short distance it painted the ranges of hills and the woods a fresh deep blue. In the middle of the day the air was alive over the land, like a flame burning' it scintillated, waved, and shone like running water, mirrored and doubled all objects, and created a great Fata Morgana. Up in this high air you breathed easily, drawing in a vital assurance and lightness of heart. In the highlands you woke up in the morning and thought: Here I am, where I ought to be."

In A Moveable Feast, Hemingway called Out of Africa one of the best books written on Africa that he'd ever read. Based on this recommendation, and the fact that it's on The List, I decided to give the book a try.

First thoughts: I can see why Hemingway liked it so much, since a good portion of the story is hunting-related. I imagine Hemingway would have even given Twilight a positive review if it had at least three scenes where the heroine shoots a lion. Aside from all the hunting stories, the writing in the book is truly gorgeous, and Blixen's descriptions of Africa are definitely worth the praise they've been given. She's at her best when writing about incredibly sad subjects, like how her farm went under and she had to sell off her possessions one by one, and my favorite mini-story in the whole book was about Blixen seeing a pair of giraffes about to be shipped off to a zoo in Europe, and ends: "As to us, we shall have to find someone badly trangressing against us, before we can in decency ask the Giraffes to forgive us our transgressions against them."

Things get a bit hairy, however, whenever Blixen is describing the actual people in Africa. Her view of the Natives (always capitalized) is perfectly appropriate for her time period, but will make 21st-century readers a little uncomfortable. She's fond of making impossibly broad generalizations about Africans ("All Natives are gamblers") and often compares them to some wild animal in order to explain their behavior to her white readers. It's historically accurate, of course, but she sometimes comes off sounding like your pretentious friend who studied abroad in South America for a semester and always tells people that Chile is actually pronounced "Cheel-ay."

The focus of the book is Africa, only, to the extent that Blixen absolutely refuses to tell us anything else. Did you know that her husband gave her syphillis, or that she later carried on a long affair with Denys Finch-Hatton? I do, but only because the book's introduction told me. There's very little of Blixen's personal life in this book, and very few of her thoughts that don't relate to Africa. Africa, and everything it meant to Blixen during her time there, is the main character in this book, and there isn't much room left for anything else.
]]> <![CDATA[The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas]]> 527495 The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas was written in 1933 by Gertrude Stein in the guise of an autobiography authored by Alice B. Toklas, who was her lover. It is a fascinating insight into the art scene in Paris as the couple were friends with Paul CĂ©zanne, Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso. They begin the war years in England but return to France, volunteering for the American Fund for the French Wounded, driving around France, helping the wounded and homeless. After the war Gertrude has an argument with T. S. Eliot after he finds one of her writings inappropriate. They become friends with Sherwood Anderson and Ernest Hemingway. It was written to make money and was indeed a commercial success. However, it attracted criticism, especially from those who appeared in the book and didn't like the way they were depicted.]]> 252 Gertrude Stein 067972463X Madeline 1 the-list, ugh, memoir Tender Buttons (prompting me to write a scathing review of it, which was promptly trolled) and my professor explained Gertrude Stein thus: "Gertrude Stein believed that there was only one great poet of the twentieth century, and it was her. She might admit that Shakespeare was talented as well, but only on a good day."

Having now read The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, I fully support this assessment of Miss Stein. Not that I dislike her - in fact, I find Gertrude Stein to be a fascinating person and I like everything I've heard about her. I just. Cannot stand. Her writing.

Based on the description, this book should be amazing: Stein, writing as her companion Alice Toklas, describes how they came to live in Paris, World War One, and the various artists and writers who visited their famous salon at 27 Rue de Fleurus. Hemingway is here, as is Picasso, TS Eliot, Max Jacob, Henri Matisse, George Braques, and countless others. A story about all of these people living and working and making art together in Paris in the early 20th century should be incredible, right? Wrong.

The main problem is that Alice B. Toklas isn't a very good narrator. Rather than dishing out the dirt on these famous men and women (as Hemingway did in A Moveable Feast), she chooses instead to just rattle off the names of people who visited her and Gertrude Stein, sprinkled with little anecdotes that are either boring despite themselves (according to this book, World War One really wasn't so bad at all, and Toklas spends the most time telling us how hard it was to go on vacation during the war because she had trouble with her passport), or are just plain boring. ("Glenway left behind him a silk cigarette case with his initials, we kept it until he came back again and then gave it to him.") Hemingway's snippy gossip may not have been true, but at least it was entertaining.

Also there's the fact that Toklas always remains on the fringe of this great group. Stein is right in the middle of it, helping Hemingway with his writing and discussing punctuation with TS Eliot, but Toklas freely admits that she isn't an artist, and always keeps herself apart: "The genuises came and talked to Gertrude Stein and the wives sat with me. How they unroll, an endless vista through the years. I began with Fernande and then there was Madame Matisse and Marcelle Braque and Josette Gris and Eve Picasso and Bridget Gibb and Marjory Gibb and Hadley and Pauline Hemingway and Mrs. Sherwood Anderson and Mrs. Bravig Imbs and the Mrs. Ford Maddox Ford and endless others, genuises, near geniuses, and might be geniuses, all having wives, and I have sat and talked with them all all the wives and later on, well later on too, I have sat and talked with all."

For God's sake. It's like if Diane Keaton's character from The Godfather wrote a book about her experiences with the mob. She was there for some of it, and she saw everybody who was important, but then the door slams shut in her face at the end and we realize that she doesn't really know anything at all, and won't ever know. ]]> 3.54 1933 The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas
author: Gertrude Stein
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.54
book published: 1933
rating: 1
read at: 2011/07/01
date added: 2015/12/16
shelves: the-list, ugh, memoir
review:
During my Modern Poetry class in college, we read some of Tender Buttons (prompting me to write a scathing review of it, which was promptly trolled) and my professor explained Gertrude Stein thus: "Gertrude Stein believed that there was only one great poet of the twentieth century, and it was her. She might admit that Shakespeare was talented as well, but only on a good day."

Having now read The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas, I fully support this assessment of Miss Stein. Not that I dislike her - in fact, I find Gertrude Stein to be a fascinating person and I like everything I've heard about her. I just. Cannot stand. Her writing.

Based on the description, this book should be amazing: Stein, writing as her companion Alice Toklas, describes how they came to live in Paris, World War One, and the various artists and writers who visited their famous salon at 27 Rue de Fleurus. Hemingway is here, as is Picasso, TS Eliot, Max Jacob, Henri Matisse, George Braques, and countless others. A story about all of these people living and working and making art together in Paris in the early 20th century should be incredible, right? Wrong.

The main problem is that Alice B. Toklas isn't a very good narrator. Rather than dishing out the dirt on these famous men and women (as Hemingway did in A Moveable Feast), she chooses instead to just rattle off the names of people who visited her and Gertrude Stein, sprinkled with little anecdotes that are either boring despite themselves (according to this book, World War One really wasn't so bad at all, and Toklas spends the most time telling us how hard it was to go on vacation during the war because she had trouble with her passport), or are just plain boring. ("Glenway left behind him a silk cigarette case with his initials, we kept it until he came back again and then gave it to him.") Hemingway's snippy gossip may not have been true, but at least it was entertaining.

Also there's the fact that Toklas always remains on the fringe of this great group. Stein is right in the middle of it, helping Hemingway with his writing and discussing punctuation with TS Eliot, but Toklas freely admits that she isn't an artist, and always keeps herself apart: "The genuises came and talked to Gertrude Stein and the wives sat with me. How they unroll, an endless vista through the years. I began with Fernande and then there was Madame Matisse and Marcelle Braque and Josette Gris and Eve Picasso and Bridget Gibb and Marjory Gibb and Hadley and Pauline Hemingway and Mrs. Sherwood Anderson and Mrs. Bravig Imbs and the Mrs. Ford Maddox Ford and endless others, genuises, near geniuses, and might be geniuses, all having wives, and I have sat and talked with them all all the wives and later on, well later on too, I have sat and talked with all."

For God's sake. It's like if Diane Keaton's character from The Godfather wrote a book about her experiences with the mob. She was there for some of it, and she saw everybody who was important, but then the door slams shut in her face at the end and we realize that she doesn't really know anything at all, and won't ever know.
]]> The Old Man and the Sea 2165 Librarian's note: An alternate cover edition can be found here

This short novel, already a modern classic, is the superbly told, tragic story of a Cuban fisherman in the Gulf Stream and the giant Marlin he kills and loses—specifically referred to in the citation accompanying the author's Nobel Prize for literature in 1954.]]> 96 Ernest Hemingway 0684830493 Madeline 3 the-list, assigned-reading
-Ernest Hemingway]]> 3.81 1952 The Old Man and the Sea
author: Ernest Hemingway
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.81
book published: 1952
rating: 3
read at: 2005/01/01
date added: 2015/09/06
shelves: the-list, assigned-reading
review:
"There isn't any symbolism. The sea is the sea. The old man is an old man. The boy is a boy and the fish is a fish. The sharks are all sharks no better and no worse. All the symbolism that people say is shit. What goes beyond is what you see beyond when you know."

-Ernest Hemingway
]]> To Kill a Mockingbird 37449 here .

The unforgettable novel of a childhood in a sleepy Southern town and the crisis of conscience that rocked it, To Kill A Mockingbird became both an instant bestseller and a critical success when it was first published in 1960. It went on to win the Pulitzer Prize in 1961 and was later made into an Academy Award-winning film, also a classic.

Compassionate, dramatic, and deeply moving, To Kill A Mockingbird takes readers to the roots of human behavior - to innocence and experience, kindness and cruelty, love and hatred, humor and pathos.]]> 376 Harper Lee 1439550417 Madeline 5
Read for: 11th grade English]]> 4.30 1960 To Kill a Mockingbird
author: Harper Lee
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.30
book published: 1960
rating: 5
read at:
date added: 2015/03/12
shelves: the-list, assigned-reading, kids-and-young-adult
review:
Freaking amazing, and so much more straightforward than most Great American Novels. Harper Lee tells a beautiful story without needing to fill it with annoying symbolism, and her story actually has an understandable plot. You thought it wasn't possible, but it is.

Read for: 11th grade English
]]> The Golden Notebook 24100 640 Doris Lessing 006093140X Madeline 2 the-list 'They didn’t look at themselves as I do. They didn’t feel as I do. How could they? I don’t want to be told when I wake up, terrified by a dream of total annihilation, because of the H-bomb exploding, that people felt that way about the cross-bow. It isn’t true. There is something new in the world. And I don’t want to hear, when I’ve had encounter with some Mogul in the film industry, who wields the kind of power over men’s minds that no emperor ever did, and I come back feeling trampled on all over, that Lesbia felt like that after an encounter with her wine-merchant. And I don’t want to be told when I suddenly have a vision (though God knows it’s hard enough to come by) of a life that isn’t full of hatred and fear and envy and competition every minute of the night and the day that this is simply the old dream of the golden age brought up to date…I want to be able to separate in myself what is old and cyclic, the recurring history, the myth, from what is new, what I feel or think that might be new�' I saw the look on her face, and said: 'You are saying that nothing I feel or think is new?'"

Anna Wulf is a writer with one published work to her name. The book was fairly successful, enabling Anna to support herself and her young daughter with the profits from the royalties, as well as taking in boarders in her London house. Although she hasn't gotten anything else published, Anna keeps up her writing, keeping four different notebooks. In a black notebook, she writes about her time as a young woman in Africa when she first became involved with the Communist Party. A red notebook describes her later disillusionment with the movement in the 1950's. In a yellow notebook, she writes a novel that's basically a fictionalized version of an affair she once had. A blue notebook is for her personal diary. Additionally, several chapters are titled "Free Women" and are a third-person description of Anna's conversations with Molly, a friend from her Communist days.

This was a slog, and not just because it's essentially just 635 pages of people sitting around and talking. The structure reminded me of Margaret Atwood's The Blind Assassin, so that was an automatic strike against this book, because The Blind Assassin does the whole blending-fact-and-fiction schtick a hell of a lot better than The Golden Notebook does. It seemed like the more interesting notebooks got fewer pages than they deserved, while the less interesting parts took up too much space - I could have read an entire book just about Anna's experiences in Africa, but the stuff about her later disillusionment with Communism was kind of like reading a blow-by-blow description of paint drying.

But the biggest problem with this book was, I'll admit, mostly my fault. I went into this book knowing one thing: this is a Very Important Feminist Text, so I read it with that mindset. And you know what I found?

Dudes. Lots and lots of dudes. Seriously, for a "feminist book" - or, hell, just a book written by a woman and featuring a female protagonist - there is a hell of a lot of page time wasted on male characters. I say "wasted" because no one in this story is even remotely interesting, except for maybe Anna's friends from her Africa days. But like I said, they get kind of shafted by the narrative and instead we have to read pages and pages about Anna having a series of dismal affairs - Anna seems incapable of having a relationship that's satisfying in any way, and a mean part of my brain starting thinking, hey Anna, you know how they say that if everyone you meet is an asshole, that means you're the asshole? Maybe there's a reason everyone you date is bad at sex and emotionally unavailable.

Anyway, we hear A LOT about Anna's many, many, boring and terrible relationships, and the worst of them comes at the end of the book, when she starts having an affair with an American man named Saul Green. Saul Green is the living worst. Saul Green makes Fitzgerald Grant seem lovable. Saul Green is the opposite of Batman. But Anna loves Saul Green, for absolutely no fucking reason, and so we have to read chapter and chapters of Anna dating this terrible person and talking about how much she loves him, and I hated every moment I had to read about his character. The worst part? At the end, Anna buys the golden notebook featured in the title, and Saul, because he is The Worst, tells Anna that he wants the notebook for himself. Because he is The Worst. And Anna, unable to see that she's dating a spoiled two-year-old who somehow managed to pass for an adult man, just laughs, like, Oh Saul, you're so funny when you joke about denying my personal autonomy! But he's not joking, because guess what Saul does? He gets his hands on Anna's golden notebook and writes his own name on the inside cover. If my boyfriend wrote his name on a notebook that I specifically told him I was saving for something special, I would probably beat him with my own shoe. Anna's reaction?

"It made me laugh, so that I nearly went upstairs and gave it to him."

No. No no. No no no no noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

(I'm sorry, I completely lost my train of thought there. That's how much I hate Saul Green and every minute I wasted reading about him while Doris Lessing tried to convince me he was charming.)

Come to think of it, I'm not %100 sure this book even passes the Bechdel test. The "Free Women" scenes were my favorite, and the ones that came the closest, because they were all about Anna and Molly talking, but guess what they talk about? Molly's ex-husband, and her son. And then I realized that the "Free Women" sections were primarily concerned with the male characters' storylines, and then I had to lie down for a while until I stopped wanting to set this book on fire.

The one shining bright spot of this book: as you can tell from the excerpt at the top of this review, the writing is very good, and the characters are all solid. They're just boring and/or infuriating.

]]> 3.79 1962 The Golden Notebook
author: Doris Lessing
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.79
book published: 1962
rating: 2
read at: 2014/12/01
date added: 2014/12/30
shelves: the-list
review:
"'In what way are you different? Are you saying there haven’t been artist-women before? There haven’t been women who were independent? There haven’t been women who insisted on sexual freedom! I tell you, there are a great line of women stretching out behind you into the past, and you have to seek them out and find them in yourself and become conscious of them.'
'They didn’t look at themselves as I do. They didn’t feel as I do. How could they? I don’t want to be told when I wake up, terrified by a dream of total annihilation, because of the H-bomb exploding, that people felt that way about the cross-bow. It isn’t true. There is something new in the world. And I don’t want to hear, when I’ve had encounter with some Mogul in the film industry, who wields the kind of power over men’s minds that no emperor ever did, and I come back feeling trampled on all over, that Lesbia felt like that after an encounter with her wine-merchant. And I don’t want to be told when I suddenly have a vision (though God knows it’s hard enough to come by) of a life that isn’t full of hatred and fear and envy and competition every minute of the night and the day that this is simply the old dream of the golden age brought up to date…I want to be able to separate in myself what is old and cyclic, the recurring history, the myth, from what is new, what I feel or think that might be new�' I saw the look on her face, and said: 'You are saying that nothing I feel or think is new?'"

Anna Wulf is a writer with one published work to her name. The book was fairly successful, enabling Anna to support herself and her young daughter with the profits from the royalties, as well as taking in boarders in her London house. Although she hasn't gotten anything else published, Anna keeps up her writing, keeping four different notebooks. In a black notebook, she writes about her time as a young woman in Africa when she first became involved with the Communist Party. A red notebook describes her later disillusionment with the movement in the 1950's. In a yellow notebook, she writes a novel that's basically a fictionalized version of an affair she once had. A blue notebook is for her personal diary. Additionally, several chapters are titled "Free Women" and are a third-person description of Anna's conversations with Molly, a friend from her Communist days.

This was a slog, and not just because it's essentially just 635 pages of people sitting around and talking. The structure reminded me of Margaret Atwood's The Blind Assassin, so that was an automatic strike against this book, because The Blind Assassin does the whole blending-fact-and-fiction schtick a hell of a lot better than The Golden Notebook does. It seemed like the more interesting notebooks got fewer pages than they deserved, while the less interesting parts took up too much space - I could have read an entire book just about Anna's experiences in Africa, but the stuff about her later disillusionment with Communism was kind of like reading a blow-by-blow description of paint drying.

But the biggest problem with this book was, I'll admit, mostly my fault. I went into this book knowing one thing: this is a Very Important Feminist Text, so I read it with that mindset. And you know what I found?

Dudes. Lots and lots of dudes. Seriously, for a "feminist book" - or, hell, just a book written by a woman and featuring a female protagonist - there is a hell of a lot of page time wasted on male characters. I say "wasted" because no one in this story is even remotely interesting, except for maybe Anna's friends from her Africa days. But like I said, they get kind of shafted by the narrative and instead we have to read pages and pages about Anna having a series of dismal affairs - Anna seems incapable of having a relationship that's satisfying in any way, and a mean part of my brain starting thinking, hey Anna, you know how they say that if everyone you meet is an asshole, that means you're the asshole? Maybe there's a reason everyone you date is bad at sex and emotionally unavailable.

Anyway, we hear A LOT about Anna's many, many, boring and terrible relationships, and the worst of them comes at the end of the book, when she starts having an affair with an American man named Saul Green. Saul Green is the living worst. Saul Green makes Fitzgerald Grant seem lovable. Saul Green is the opposite of Batman. But Anna loves Saul Green, for absolutely no fucking reason, and so we have to read chapter and chapters of Anna dating this terrible person and talking about how much she loves him, and I hated every moment I had to read about his character. The worst part? At the end, Anna buys the golden notebook featured in the title, and Saul, because he is The Worst, tells Anna that he wants the notebook for himself. Because he is The Worst. And Anna, unable to see that she's dating a spoiled two-year-old who somehow managed to pass for an adult man, just laughs, like, Oh Saul, you're so funny when you joke about denying my personal autonomy! But he's not joking, because guess what Saul does? He gets his hands on Anna's golden notebook and writes his own name on the inside cover. If my boyfriend wrote his name on a notebook that I specifically told him I was saving for something special, I would probably beat him with my own shoe. Anna's reaction?

"It made me laugh, so that I nearly went upstairs and gave it to him."

No. No no. No no no no noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

(I'm sorry, I completely lost my train of thought there. That's how much I hate Saul Green and every minute I wasted reading about him while Doris Lessing tried to convince me he was charming.)

Come to think of it, I'm not %100 sure this book even passes the Bechdel test. The "Free Women" scenes were my favorite, and the ones that came the closest, because they were all about Anna and Molly talking, but guess what they talk about? Molly's ex-husband, and her son. And then I realized that the "Free Women" sections were primarily concerned with the male characters' storylines, and then I had to lie down for a while until I stopped wanting to set this book on fire.

The one shining bright spot of this book: as you can tell from the excerpt at the top of this review, the writing is very good, and the characters are all solid. They're just boring and/or infuriating.


]]> The Grapes of Wrath 18114322
First published in 1939, Steinbeck’s Pulitzer Prize-winning epic of the Great Depression chronicles the Dust Bowl migration of the 1930s and tells the story of one Oklahoma farm family, the Joads—driven from their homestead and forced to travel west to the promised land of California. Out of their trials and their repeated collisions against the hard realities of an America divided into Haves and Have-Nots evolves a drama that is intensely human yet majestic in its scale and moral vision, elemental yet plainspoken, tragic but ultimately stirring in its human dignity. A portrait of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless, of one man’s fierce reaction to injustice, and of one woman’s stoical strength, the novel captures the horrors of the Great Depression and probes into the very nature of equality and justice in America. At once a naturalistic epic, captivity narrative, road novel, and transcendental gospel, Steinbeck’s powerful landmark novel is perhaps the most American of American Classics.]]> 496 John Steinbeck 067001690X Madeline 4 the-list
I don't just mean it was depressing. It was, obviously - a book about a poor family being forced from their home during the Great Depression and having to beg for the chance to pick cotton at fifteen cents per hour can't be anything except depressing - but it wasn't the most depressing book I've ever read. That honor probably goes to The Hunchback of Notre Dame, although I guess Angela's Ashes is a close second.

This was hard to read, not because it was a portrayal of a horrible period of history that actually happened. That contributed to the tragedy of the book, of course, coupled with the knowledge that there were not just a few Joad families during the Great Depression, but millions of them, so your percentage of possible happy endings is going to be pretty low.

It wasn't even sad because Steinbeck was using the backdrop of the Great Depression to illustrate the greater problems in America - the disparity between rich and poor, the way low-level laborers have to fight tooth and nail to achieve the most basic human rights, the fact that the people who run the major banks and farms are horrible unfeeling shells of human beings, etc.

The Grapes of Wrath is sad for all of these reasons, but here is what makes it sadder than anything: not the fact that Steinbeck is writing about a horrible period in history that's behind us now. It's because that horrible period went away, and then it came back. We aren't in the middle of a second Dust Bowl, but make no mistake: we are living in the second Great Depression.

If you haven't read yet and have always been meaning to, there's no better time than now. Steinbeck's book was written in the late 1930's, but just about everything that happens here is happening right in your state - possibly in your neighborhood - as you read this. You read about the banks in the Great Depression sending men to bulldoze people's houses while the family stood outside, and find yourself thinking, "Well, at least now they just pile all your stuff on the curb after you get foreclosed on." You read about migrant families accepting offers to work all day at pitiful wages, because fifteen cents an hour is still better than zero cents an hour and the kids have to eat, and you think about the immigrants who pick your food in exchange for shitty wages. You read about the Joad family and the others being called "Okies" and forced out of their camps by the cops, and think about politicians who scream about "illegals" taking away the good American jobs and deporting kids' parents.

Is this review getting too politcally-minded? Good. That's how Steinbeck would have wanted me to talk about his book, because let me assure you - The Grapes of Wrath is extremely fucking political. Another reviewer called it the anti-Atlas Shrugged, which is pretty damn apt. It's all about unions and the rights of the worker and how poor people need government assistance because sometimes life just sucks for no fucking reason.

It's sad and it's searing, and beautifully written, and unrelentingly depressing. But it should be read.

(the only reason this gets four stars instead of five is because of the ending. Look, I know that Steinbeck didn't have to give the Joads a happy ending, and I'm not saying he gave them a sad one either - he gave them a weird one instead. I was already pretty sick of hearing about Rose of Sharon and her magical pregnancy, so it was just the cherry on top of a shit subplot sundae that the ending [spoilers removed]]]> 4.06 1939 The Grapes of Wrath
author: John Steinbeck
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.06
book published: 1939
rating: 4
read at: 2014/12/01
date added: 2014/12/29
shelves: the-list
review:
Chirst. This was a tough one to read.

I don't just mean it was depressing. It was, obviously - a book about a poor family being forced from their home during the Great Depression and having to beg for the chance to pick cotton at fifteen cents per hour can't be anything except depressing - but it wasn't the most depressing book I've ever read. That honor probably goes to The Hunchback of Notre Dame, although I guess Angela's Ashes is a close second.

This was hard to read, not because it was a portrayal of a horrible period of history that actually happened. That contributed to the tragedy of the book, of course, coupled with the knowledge that there were not just a few Joad families during the Great Depression, but millions of them, so your percentage of possible happy endings is going to be pretty low.

It wasn't even sad because Steinbeck was using the backdrop of the Great Depression to illustrate the greater problems in America - the disparity between rich and poor, the way low-level laborers have to fight tooth and nail to achieve the most basic human rights, the fact that the people who run the major banks and farms are horrible unfeeling shells of human beings, etc.

The Grapes of Wrath is sad for all of these reasons, but here is what makes it sadder than anything: not the fact that Steinbeck is writing about a horrible period in history that's behind us now. It's because that horrible period went away, and then it came back. We aren't in the middle of a second Dust Bowl, but make no mistake: we are living in the second Great Depression.

If you haven't read yet and have always been meaning to, there's no better time than now. Steinbeck's book was written in the late 1930's, but just about everything that happens here is happening right in your state - possibly in your neighborhood - as you read this. You read about the banks in the Great Depression sending men to bulldoze people's houses while the family stood outside, and find yourself thinking, "Well, at least now they just pile all your stuff on the curb after you get foreclosed on." You read about migrant families accepting offers to work all day at pitiful wages, because fifteen cents an hour is still better than zero cents an hour and the kids have to eat, and you think about the immigrants who pick your food in exchange for shitty wages. You read about the Joad family and the others being called "Okies" and forced out of their camps by the cops, and think about politicians who scream about "illegals" taking away the good American jobs and deporting kids' parents.

Is this review getting too politcally-minded? Good. That's how Steinbeck would have wanted me to talk about his book, because let me assure you - The Grapes of Wrath is extremely fucking political. Another reviewer called it the anti-Atlas Shrugged, which is pretty damn apt. It's all about unions and the rights of the worker and how poor people need government assistance because sometimes life just sucks for no fucking reason.

It's sad and it's searing, and beautifully written, and unrelentingly depressing. But it should be read.

(the only reason this gets four stars instead of five is because of the ending. Look, I know that Steinbeck didn't have to give the Joads a happy ending, and I'm not saying he gave them a sad one either - he gave them a weird one instead. I was already pretty sick of hearing about Rose of Sharon and her magical pregnancy, so it was just the cherry on top of a shit subplot sundae that the ending [spoilers removed]
]]> Heart of Darkness 117837 Alternative cover edition found here

Dark allegory describes the narrator's journey up the Congo River and his meeting with, and fascination by, Mr. Kurtz, a mysterious personage who dominates the unruly inhabitants of the region. Masterly blend of adventure, character development, psychological penetration. Considered by many Conrad's finest, most enigmatic story.]]> 72 Joseph Conrad 0486264645 Madeline 1 Apocalypse Now and pretend you read the book. Just remember to change a few details: 1) the setting is Africa, not Vietnam. 2) Kurtz is an ivory trader. He is not in the army. 3) Kurtz does not get killed; he gets sick and dies. 4) There are no puppies.
That's pretty much it.

Read for: 12th grade AP English]]> 3.35 1899 Heart of Darkness
author: Joseph Conrad
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.35
book published: 1899
rating: 1
read at:
date added: 2014/09/27
shelves: the-list, assigned-reading, ugh
review:
Confusing as hell. Just rent Apocalypse Now and pretend you read the book. Just remember to change a few details: 1) the setting is Africa, not Vietnam. 2) Kurtz is an ivory trader. He is not in the army. 3) Kurtz does not get killed; he gets sick and dies. 4) There are no puppies.
That's pretty much it.

Read for: 12th grade AP English
]]> A Farewell to Arms 10799 A Farewell to Arms is the unforgettable story of an American ambulance driver on the Italian front and his passion for a beautiful English nurse. Set against the looming horrors of the battlefield - the weary, demoralized men marching in the rain during the German attack on Caporetto; the profound struggle between loyalty and desertion—this gripping, semiautobiographical work captures the harsh realities of war and the pain of lovers caught in its inexorable sweep. Ernest Hemingway famously said that he rewrote his ending to A Farewell to Arms thirty-nine times to get the words right.]]> 293 Ernest Hemingway 0099910101 Madeline 3 the-list
Frederic Henry (who, for all intents and purposes is Ernest Hemingway) is a volunteer in the Italian Army in World War I. He's wounded in battle and has to spend time recuperating in a hospital after his leg is operated on, and while there he falls in love with British nurse Catherine Barkley. The novel follows them as they try to escape the war and start a life together. On the surface, this isn't really a book about war; it's a book about two people just trying to live a normal, happy life while the whole world goes to hell around them.

I was lukewarm on this one. For Whom the Bell Tolls is much better, first because it's about something bigger than just two people trying to get married (Robert Jordan struggled with the concept of heroism and how war changes people; Frederick Henry just wants to get laid), and also because the characters in A Farewell to Arms are significantly less complex and interesting than the ones in For Whom the Bell Tolls. Also, Catherine Barkley is just an absolute nightmare of a character - she has no discernible personality and exists just to gratify and worship Henry, to the extent that she makes Bella Swan look like an independent strong woman overflowing with self-esteem. Think I'm exaggerating? Here, have some lines of actual dialogue that Catherine says to Henry: "I'll say just what you wish and I'll do what you wish and then you will never want any other girls, will you?" "I want what you want. There isn't any more. Just what you want." "I'm good. Aren't I good?" "You see? I'm good. I do what you want."

Christ on a bike. That all happens in one single scene, by the way. Catherine isn't a person, she's a horrible Frankenstein's monster stitched together from desperation and male wish fulfillment. To Hemingway's credit, Henry really does love Catherine, so at least we can take comfort in the fact that her senseless devotion was reciprocated a little bit (not that Henry ever talks about his feelings with the same intensity that Catherine does, because that'd be gay).

The reason this gets three stars instead of two is because Hemingway is still Hemingway, and amidst all the bad characterization and plodding pace he manages to create these little bits of gorgeous writing that make everything okay, at least for a little while:

"Often a man wishes to be alone and a girl wishes to be alone too and if they love each other they are jealous of that in each other, but I can truly say we never felt that. We could feel alone when we were together, alone against the others. It has only happened to me like that once. I have been alone while I was with many girls and that is the way you can be most lonely. But we were never lonely and never afraid when we were together. I know that night is not the same as the day: that all things different, that the things of the night cannot be explained in the day, because they do not then exist, and the night can be a dreadful time for lonely people once their loneliness has started. But with Catherine there was almost no difference in the night except that it was an even better time."]]> 3.83 1929 A Farewell to Arms
author: Ernest Hemingway
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.83
book published: 1929
rating: 3
read at: 2012/11/01
date added: 2014/04/08
shelves: the-list
review:
"British ambulance drivers were killed sometimes. Well, I knew I would not be killed. Not in this war. It did not have anything to do with me. It seemed no more dangerous to me myself than war in the movies. I wished to God it was over though."

Frederic Henry (who, for all intents and purposes is Ernest Hemingway) is a volunteer in the Italian Army in World War I. He's wounded in battle and has to spend time recuperating in a hospital after his leg is operated on, and while there he falls in love with British nurse Catherine Barkley. The novel follows them as they try to escape the war and start a life together. On the surface, this isn't really a book about war; it's a book about two people just trying to live a normal, happy life while the whole world goes to hell around them.

I was lukewarm on this one. For Whom the Bell Tolls is much better, first because it's about something bigger than just two people trying to get married (Robert Jordan struggled with the concept of heroism and how war changes people; Frederick Henry just wants to get laid), and also because the characters in A Farewell to Arms are significantly less complex and interesting than the ones in For Whom the Bell Tolls. Also, Catherine Barkley is just an absolute nightmare of a character - she has no discernible personality and exists just to gratify and worship Henry, to the extent that she makes Bella Swan look like an independent strong woman overflowing with self-esteem. Think I'm exaggerating? Here, have some lines of actual dialogue that Catherine says to Henry: "I'll say just what you wish and I'll do what you wish and then you will never want any other girls, will you?" "I want what you want. There isn't any more. Just what you want." "I'm good. Aren't I good?" "You see? I'm good. I do what you want."

Christ on a bike. That all happens in one single scene, by the way. Catherine isn't a person, she's a horrible Frankenstein's monster stitched together from desperation and male wish fulfillment. To Hemingway's credit, Henry really does love Catherine, so at least we can take comfort in the fact that her senseless devotion was reciprocated a little bit (not that Henry ever talks about his feelings with the same intensity that Catherine does, because that'd be gay).

The reason this gets three stars instead of two is because Hemingway is still Hemingway, and amidst all the bad characterization and plodding pace he manages to create these little bits of gorgeous writing that make everything okay, at least for a little while:

"Often a man wishes to be alone and a girl wishes to be alone too and if they love each other they are jealous of that in each other, but I can truly say we never felt that. We could feel alone when we were together, alone against the others. It has only happened to me like that once. I have been alone while I was with many girls and that is the way you can be most lonely. But we were never lonely and never afraid when we were together. I know that night is not the same as the day: that all things different, that the things of the night cannot be explained in the day, because they do not then exist, and the night can be a dreadful time for lonely people once their loneliness has started. But with Catherine there was almost no difference in the night except that it was an even better time."
]]> The Catcher in the Rye 5107 It's Christmas time and Holden Caulfield has just been expelled from yet another school...

Fleeing the crooks at Pencey Prep, he pinballs around New York City seeking solace in fleeting encounters—shooting the bull with strangers in dive hotels, wandering alone round Central Park, getting beaten up by pimps and cut down by erstwhile girlfriends. The city is beautiful and terrible, in all its neon loneliness and seedy glamour, its mingled sense of possibility and emptiness. Holden passes through it like a ghost, thinking always of his kid sister Phoebe, the only person who really understands him, and his determination to escape the phonies and find a life of true meaning.

The Catcher in the Rye is an all-time classic in coming-of-age literature- an elegy to teenage alienation, capturing the deeply human need for connection and the bewildering sense of loss as we leave childhood behind.

J.D. Salinger's (1919�2010) classic novel of teenage angst and rebellion was first published in 1951. The novel was included on Time's 2005 list of the 100 best English-language novels written since 1923. It was named by Modern Library and its readers as one of the 100 best English-language novels of the 20th century. It has been frequently challenged in the court for its liberal use of profanity and portrayal of sexuality and in the 1950's and 60's it was the novel that every teenage boy wants to read.]]> 277 J.D. Salinger 0316769177 Madeline 1 I will give it to anyone who can explain the plot of this book (or why there is no plot) and make me understand why the hell people think it's so amazing.]]> 3.81 1951 The Catcher in the Rye
author: J.D. Salinger
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.81
book published: 1951
rating: 1
read at:
date added: 2014/01/12
shelves: the-list, kids-and-young-adult, ugh
review:
In my hand I hold $5.
I will give it to anyone who can explain the plot of this book (or why there is no plot) and make me understand why the hell people think it's so amazing.
]]> Love in the Time of Cholera 9712 348 Gabriel García Márquez 140003468X Madeline 2 the-list, ugh
Okay. I like Marquez. I think his writing is beautiful, his settings are evocative and masterfully portrayed, and yes, his books are pretty romantic, and I always enjoy magical realism (this one could have used more of that last bit, though). The last twenty pages of the book even manged to suck me into the romance of the story, and I found myself finally really invested in this love story instead of being vaguely creeped out (we'll get there). Look, I even found a really nice passage to quote:

"It was as if they had leapt over the arduous calvary of conjugal life and gone straight to the heart of love. They were together in silence like an old married couple wary of life, beyond the pitfalls of passion, beyond the brutal mockery of hope and the phantoms of disillusion: beyond love. For they had lived together long enough to know that love was always love, anytime and anyplace, but it was more solid the closer it came to death."

See? That's fucking beautiful, and even if I didn't like the story itself, I still liked the writing. So call off the dogs, Marquez apologists, and let's get to the ranting portion of the review.

Fair warning to all who proceed past this point: I am preparing to don my Feminist Rage hat and shout about rape culture. Those who plan to leave mean comments calling me an idiot or telling me that I misunderstood the book, remember that you were warned. BEWARE, FOR HERE BE DRAGONS AND ANGRY FEMINISTS.

Here's something I learned about myself while reading this: I have absolutely no patience for books about obsession disguised as love. I hated it in Twilight, I hated it in Wuthering Heights, I hated it in The Phantom of the Opera, and I hated it here. It would be one thing, I decided, if Fermina Daza felt as passionately about Florentino Ariza as he felt about her. But she didn't love him. For her, their romance was a brief fling in her teens, and she stopped loving him when she returned from her trip. She continued not loving him, until he wears her down (after writing her letters constantly despite her explicitly telling him to fuck off out of her life) and she basically shrugs her shoulders and says, fine, might as well.

The lesson men can take from this book is that if a woman says "no" (as Fermina frequently and clearly says to Florentino), she really means, "make me change my mind." NOPE. NOPE NOPE NOPE. THIS PHILOSOPHY IS NOT OKAY AND IT IS WHY RAPE CULTURE EXISTS. NO MEANS FUCKING NO, EVERYBODY. IF A WOMAN TELLS YOU TO LEAVE HER ALONE, YOU LEAVE HER THE FUCK ALONE. IT IS NOT ROMANTIC TO OBSESS ABOUT HER FOR FIFTY YEARS, IT IS CREEPY.

And OF COURSE Florentino still fucks anything that moves while claiming to be in love with Fermina, because he is a man and that's just how it works. Which leads me to my next ranting point: this book romanticizes rape.

(you can still get out, guys - it's only going to get worse from here)

First there was the intensely unsettling way Florentino loses his virginity: while traveling on a ship, a woman drags him into her cabin and forces him to have sex with her. Then Florentino falls in love with her. Because of course he does. I was willing to chalk this scene up to the common misconception that men cannot be sexually assaulted because men are horny dogs who are always up for sex no matter what - fine, whatever, I'll let it go. But then later, a minor female character describes the time she got raped, and I'm going to let you guys read this while I do yoga breaths in the corner and count to ten slowly:

"When she was still very young, a strong, able man whose face she never saw took her by surprise, threw her down on the jetty, ripped her clothes off, and made instantaneous and frenetic love to her. Lying there on the rocks, her body covered with cuts and bruises, she had wanted that man to stay forever so she could die of love in his arms."

...

Once more with feeling: NOPE.

AND THEN, as the creepy pedophilic cherry on top of this rape sundae, Florentino's last affair is with a child. When he is in his sixties. The best part is that he doesn't even use the classic pedophile's defense of "yes, she's young, but she ACTS like a grown woman!" No, Florentino sees that this child is going to be smoking hot when she grows up, and decides that he can't wait that long. Then this passage happens:

"She was still a child in every sense of the word, with braces on her teeth and the scrapes of elementary school on her knees, but he saw right away the kind of woman she was soon going to be, and he cultivated her during a slow year of Saturdays at the circus, Sundays in the park with ice cream, childish late afternoons, and he won her confidence, he won her affection, he led her by the hand, with the gentle astuteness of a kind grandfather, toward his secret slaughterhouse."

The hero of Love in the Time of Cholera, ladies and gentlemen. Let's give him a round of applause.

If anyone wants to join me in the corner, I will be staying here for the rest of the week. ]]> 3.92 1985 Love in the Time of Cholera
author: Gabriel García Márquez
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.92
book published: 1985
rating: 2
read at: 2013/08/01
date added: 2014/01/12
shelves: the-list, ugh
review:
LET ME EXPLAIN, GUYS.

Okay. I like Marquez. I think his writing is beautiful, his settings are evocative and masterfully portrayed, and yes, his books are pretty romantic, and I always enjoy magical realism (this one could have used more of that last bit, though). The last twenty pages of the book even manged to suck me into the romance of the story, and I found myself finally really invested in this love story instead of being vaguely creeped out (we'll get there). Look, I even found a really nice passage to quote:

"It was as if they had leapt over the arduous calvary of conjugal life and gone straight to the heart of love. They were together in silence like an old married couple wary of life, beyond the pitfalls of passion, beyond the brutal mockery of hope and the phantoms of disillusion: beyond love. For they had lived together long enough to know that love was always love, anytime and anyplace, but it was more solid the closer it came to death."

See? That's fucking beautiful, and even if I didn't like the story itself, I still liked the writing. So call off the dogs, Marquez apologists, and let's get to the ranting portion of the review.

Fair warning to all who proceed past this point: I am preparing to don my Feminist Rage hat and shout about rape culture. Those who plan to leave mean comments calling me an idiot or telling me that I misunderstood the book, remember that you were warned. BEWARE, FOR HERE BE DRAGONS AND ANGRY FEMINISTS.

Here's something I learned about myself while reading this: I have absolutely no patience for books about obsession disguised as love. I hated it in Twilight, I hated it in Wuthering Heights, I hated it in The Phantom of the Opera, and I hated it here. It would be one thing, I decided, if Fermina Daza felt as passionately about Florentino Ariza as he felt about her. But she didn't love him. For her, their romance was a brief fling in her teens, and she stopped loving him when she returned from her trip. She continued not loving him, until he wears her down (after writing her letters constantly despite her explicitly telling him to fuck off out of her life) and she basically shrugs her shoulders and says, fine, might as well.

The lesson men can take from this book is that if a woman says "no" (as Fermina frequently and clearly says to Florentino), she really means, "make me change my mind." NOPE. NOPE NOPE NOPE. THIS PHILOSOPHY IS NOT OKAY AND IT IS WHY RAPE CULTURE EXISTS. NO MEANS FUCKING NO, EVERYBODY. IF A WOMAN TELLS YOU TO LEAVE HER ALONE, YOU LEAVE HER THE FUCK ALONE. IT IS NOT ROMANTIC TO OBSESS ABOUT HER FOR FIFTY YEARS, IT IS CREEPY.

And OF COURSE Florentino still fucks anything that moves while claiming to be in love with Fermina, because he is a man and that's just how it works. Which leads me to my next ranting point: this book romanticizes rape.

(you can still get out, guys - it's only going to get worse from here)

First there was the intensely unsettling way Florentino loses his virginity: while traveling on a ship, a woman drags him into her cabin and forces him to have sex with her. Then Florentino falls in love with her. Because of course he does. I was willing to chalk this scene up to the common misconception that men cannot be sexually assaulted because men are horny dogs who are always up for sex no matter what - fine, whatever, I'll let it go. But then later, a minor female character describes the time she got raped, and I'm going to let you guys read this while I do yoga breaths in the corner and count to ten slowly:

"When she was still very young, a strong, able man whose face she never saw took her by surprise, threw her down on the jetty, ripped her clothes off, and made instantaneous and frenetic love to her. Lying there on the rocks, her body covered with cuts and bruises, she had wanted that man to stay forever so she could die of love in his arms."

...

Once more with feeling: NOPE.

AND THEN, as the creepy pedophilic cherry on top of this rape sundae, Florentino's last affair is with a child. When he is in his sixties. The best part is that he doesn't even use the classic pedophile's defense of "yes, she's young, but she ACTS like a grown woman!" No, Florentino sees that this child is going to be smoking hot when she grows up, and decides that he can't wait that long. Then this passage happens:

"She was still a child in every sense of the word, with braces on her teeth and the scrapes of elementary school on her knees, but he saw right away the kind of woman she was soon going to be, and he cultivated her during a slow year of Saturdays at the circus, Sundays in the park with ice cream, childish late afternoons, and he won her confidence, he won her affection, he led her by the hand, with the gentle astuteness of a kind grandfather, toward his secret slaughterhouse."

The hero of Love in the Time of Cholera, ladies and gentlemen. Let's give him a round of applause.

If anyone wants to join me in the corner, I will be staying here for the rest of the week.
]]> God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater 9590 Slaughterhouse-Five of Vonnegut's canon in its prominence and influence, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater (1965) presents Eliot Rosewater, an itinerant, semi-crazed millionaire wandering the country in search of heritage and philanthropic outcome, introducing the science fiction writer Kilgore Trout to the world and Vonnegut to the collegiate audience which would soon make him a cult writer.

Trout, modeled according to Vonnegut on the science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon (with whom Vonnegut had an occasional relationship) is a desperate, impoverished but visionary hack writer who functions for Eliot Rosewater as both conscience and horrid example. Rosewater, seeking to put his inheritance to some meaningful use (his father was an entrepreneur), tries to do good within the context of almost illimitable cynicism and corruption.

It is in this novel that Rosewater wanders into a science fiction conference--an actual annual event in Milford, Pennsylvania--and at the motel delivers his famous monologue evoked by science fiction writers and critics for almost half a century: "None of you can write for sour apples... but you're the only people trying to come to terms with the really terrific things which are happening today." Money does not drive Mr. Rosewater (or the corrupt lawyer who tries to shape the Rosewater fortune) so much as outrage at the human condition.

The novel was adapted for a 1979 Alan Menken musical. The novel is told mostly thru a collection of short stories dealing with Eliot's interactions with the citizens of Rosewater County, usually with the last sentence serving as a punch line. The antagonist's tale, Mushari's, is told in a similar short essay fashion. The stories reveal different hypocrisies of humankind in a darkly humorous fashion.]]> 288 Kurt Vonnegut Jr. 0385333471 Madeline 4 the-list Cat's Cradle resulted in me staring at the page, mentally shouting at Kurt Vonnegut, "What are you even TALKING about?" Reading Slaughter-House Five went slightly better, and by the time I read Mr. Rosewater, I was completely at peace with Vonnegut's "maybe this all has deep meaning and maybe I'm just pulling it out of my ass" style.
Confusing possible-symbolism aside, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater is an intriguing look at wealth and charity in America. And why lawyers are evil.
Also, I was happy to see that the infamous Kilgore Trout, my favorite recurring Vonnegut character, made another appearance in the story of Mr. Rosewater. ]]> 3.94 1965 God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater
author: Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.94
book published: 1965
rating: 4
read at:
date added: 2014/01/11
shelves: the-list
review:
Once I realized and accepted the fact that I will never completely understand what Kurt Vonnegut writes, it became a lot easier for me to read his books. My first attempt at reading his work - Cat's Cradle resulted in me staring at the page, mentally shouting at Kurt Vonnegut, "What are you even TALKING about?" Reading Slaughter-House Five went slightly better, and by the time I read Mr. Rosewater, I was completely at peace with Vonnegut's "maybe this all has deep meaning and maybe I'm just pulling it out of my ass" style.
Confusing possible-symbolism aside, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater is an intriguing look at wealth and charity in America. And why lawyers are evil.
Also, I was happy to see that the infamous Kilgore Trout, my favorite recurring Vonnegut character, made another appearance in the story of Mr. Rosewater.
]]> <![CDATA[The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (Hercule Poirot, #4)]]> 16328
The peaceful English village of King’s Abbot is stunned. The widow Ferrars dies from an overdose of Veronal. Not twenty-four hours later, Roger Ackroyd—the man she had planned to marry—is murdered. It is a baffling case involving blackmail and death that taxes Hercule Poirot’s “little grey cells� before he reaches one of the most startling conclusions of his career.

Librarian's note: the first fifteen novels in the Hercule Poirot series are 1) The Mysterious Affair at Styles, 1920; 2) The Murder on the Links, 1923; 3) The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, 1926; 4) The Big Four, 1927; 5) The Mystery of the Blue Train, 1928; 6) Peril at End House, 1932; 7) Lord Edgware Dies, 1933; 8) Murder on the Orient Express, 1934; 9) Three Act Tragedy, 1935; 10) Death in the Clouds, 1935; 11) The A.B.C. Murders, 1936; 12) Murder in Mesopotamia, 1936; 13) Cards on the Table, 1936; 14) Dumb Witness, 1937; and 15) Death on the Nile, 1937. These are just the novels; Poirot also appears in this period in a play, Black Coffee, 1930, and two collections of short stories, Poirot Investigates, 1924, and Murder in the Mews, 1937. Each novel, play and short story has its own entry on Ĺ·±¦ÓéŔÖ.]]> 288 Agatha Christie 1579126278 Madeline 5 the-list, detective-fiction Roger Ackroyd is the only Agatha Christie book featured on the list of 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, and I was skeptical about the List's claim that this was the only Christie book worth reading. But, as much as it pains me to say this, I think the List is right on this one. At least a little - I'm definitely not suggesting that you should read this book and then never pick up a Christie novel ever again, but if you find yourself in a situation where you're going to spend a month on a desert island and can only bring one book, and the only books you've been offered are from the Agatha Christie canon, you should pick this one.

The ending (which I will not discuss in explicit detail for fear of spoilers) is what makes this a 5-star book. Let me assure you: you will not guess who the murderer is. Never ever ever. When the murderer is revealed, you will not believe. When the murderer goes on to explain his/her actions, you will continue to not believe it. Only by rereading certain important passages will you start to realize that the answer was in front of you all the time, and you couldn't see it. It's a testament to Christie's skill as a writer that this is accomplished.

And, having now read a Miss Marple mystery, I'm going to choose a side: I'm officially Team Hercule. He is silly and self-centered and ridiculous and funny and all I want to do is pinch his cheeks and then go sit in a cafe with him and eat croissants. My favorite part of the book is when Poirot makes his grand entrance. The narrator, Dr. Sheppard, is in his garden when someone throws a vegetable marrow over the wall. A second later, the doctor's new neighbor pokes his "egg-shaped head, partially covered with suspiciously black hair, two immense mustaches, and a pair of watchful eyes" over the garden wall and attempts to explain himself:

"I demand of you a thousand pardons, monsieur. I am without defense. For some months now I cultivate the marrows. This morning suddenly I enrage myself with the marrows. I send them to promenade themselves - alas! not only mentally but physically. I seize the biggest. I hurl him over the wall. Monsieur, I am ashamed. I prostrate myself."
]]> 4.26 1926 The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (Hercule Poirot, #4)
author: Agatha Christie
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.26
book published: 1926
rating: 5
read at: 2010/06/01
date added: 2014/01/10
shelves: the-list, detective-fiction
review:
I went into this book with a bit of an attitude. Roger Ackroyd is the only Agatha Christie book featured on the list of 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, and I was skeptical about the List's claim that this was the only Christie book worth reading. But, as much as it pains me to say this, I think the List is right on this one. At least a little - I'm definitely not suggesting that you should read this book and then never pick up a Christie novel ever again, but if you find yourself in a situation where you're going to spend a month on a desert island and can only bring one book, and the only books you've been offered are from the Agatha Christie canon, you should pick this one.

The ending (which I will not discuss in explicit detail for fear of spoilers) is what makes this a 5-star book. Let me assure you: you will not guess who the murderer is. Never ever ever. When the murderer is revealed, you will not believe. When the murderer goes on to explain his/her actions, you will continue to not believe it. Only by rereading certain important passages will you start to realize that the answer was in front of you all the time, and you couldn't see it. It's a testament to Christie's skill as a writer that this is accomplished.

And, having now read a Miss Marple mystery, I'm going to choose a side: I'm officially Team Hercule. He is silly and self-centered and ridiculous and funny and all I want to do is pinch his cheeks and then go sit in a cafe with him and eat croissants. My favorite part of the book is when Poirot makes his grand entrance. The narrator, Dr. Sheppard, is in his garden when someone throws a vegetable marrow over the wall. A second later, the doctor's new neighbor pokes his "egg-shaped head, partially covered with suspiciously black hair, two immense mustaches, and a pair of watchful eyes" over the garden wall and attempts to explain himself:

"I demand of you a thousand pardons, monsieur. I am without defense. For some months now I cultivate the marrows. This morning suddenly I enrage myself with the marrows. I send them to promenade themselves - alas! not only mentally but physically. I seize the biggest. I hurl him over the wall. Monsieur, I am ashamed. I prostrate myself."

]]> The Remains of the Day 28921 Librarian's note: See alternate cover edition of ISBN 0571225381 here.

In the summer of 1956, Stevens, a long-serving butler at Darlington Hall, decides to take a motoring trip through the West Country. The six-day excursion becomes a journey into the past of Stevens and England, a past that takes in fascism, two world wars, and an unrealised love between the butler and his housekeeper.]]> 258 Kazuo Ishiguro Madeline 4 the-list Never Let Me Go, but then I read the plot description. The Remains of the Day is narrated by Stevens, an English butler taking a road trip across England while reflecting on his long career serving Lord Darlington of Darlington Hall through two world wars.

That was all I needed. As has been previously discussed, I love Downton Abbey, so as soon as I read the plot synopsis and realized that this was going to be similar, I was on board. And Ishiguro did not disappoint me - the book could easily be retitled Mr. Carson Takes a Road Trip.

To call this book's pace "leisurely" would be an understatement. But I didn't mind it, because unlike Never Let Me Go, which demanded urgency and excitement on its characters' part and never delivered, the slow pace of this book makes sense. Every day of his trip, Stevens writes a bit in his diary - sometimes he reports what he did and what he saw that day, but often he uses the time reflect on his career and muse about what it means to be a good servant.

"And let me now posit this: 'dignity' has to do crucially with a butler's ability not to abandon the profession he inhabits. Lesser butlers will abandon their professional being for the private one at the least provocation. For such persons, being a butler is like playing some pantomime role; a small push, a slight stumble, and the facade will drop off to reveal the actor underneath. The great butlers are great by virtue of their ability to inhabit their professional role and inhabit it to the utmost; they will not be shaken out by external events, however surprising, alarming, or vexing. They wear their professionalism as a decent gentleman will wear his suit: he will not let ruffians or circumstances tear it off him in the public gaze; he will discard it when, and only when, he wills to do so, and this will invariably be when he is entirely alone. It is, as I say, a matter of 'dignity'."

Stevens's reflections on his career are quietly fascinating because they reveal truths to the reader that the narrator remains unaware of. Stevens tells us about his relationship with his father, his strained rapport with the head housekeeper of Darlington Hall, and his employer Lord Darlington. Very quickly we realize some important things that have eluded Stevens: his father was emotionally unavailable and Stevens has never fully dealt with his death, Stevens is probably in love with the housekeeper, and Lord Darlington was not nearly as perfect as Stevens wants to believe he was. The willful ignorance and refusal to see things the way they really are was also present in Never Let Me Go, but it didn't irritate me here. I wasn't angry with Stevens for failing to see what I could see; mostly I was sad for him, and a little envious of the confident bubble he lived in. His journey is slow, uneventful, and there is no real resolution (God, it's exactly like Never Let Me Go there) but there was a sad beauty to it, and I loved every page.

"For it is true, when I stood on that high ledge this morning and viewed the land before me, I distinctly felt that rare, yet unmistakable feeling - the feeling that one is in the presence of greatness. ...And yet what precisely is this 'greatness'? Just where, or in what, does it lie? I am quite aware it would take a far wiser head than mine to answer such a question, but if I were forced to hazard a guess, I would say that it is the very lack of obvious drama or spectacle that sets the beauty of our land apart. What is pertinent is the calmness of that beauty, its sense of restraint. It is as though the land knows of its own beauty, of its own greatness, and feels no need to shout it."

(actually, that's a pretty damn good explanation of Ishiguro's writing style too, now that I think about it)]]> 4.14 1989 The Remains of the Day
author: Kazuo Ishiguro
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.14
book published: 1989
rating: 4
read at: 2012/12/01
date added: 2014/01/10
shelves: the-list
review:
I was in a bookshop a few weeks ago, looking to add to my collection, when this book caught my eye. At first I was wary, having fucking hated Never Let Me Go, but then I read the plot description. The Remains of the Day is narrated by Stevens, an English butler taking a road trip across England while reflecting on his long career serving Lord Darlington of Darlington Hall through two world wars.

That was all I needed. As has been previously discussed, I love Downton Abbey, so as soon as I read the plot synopsis and realized that this was going to be similar, I was on board. And Ishiguro did not disappoint me - the book could easily be retitled Mr. Carson Takes a Road Trip.

To call this book's pace "leisurely" would be an understatement. But I didn't mind it, because unlike Never Let Me Go, which demanded urgency and excitement on its characters' part and never delivered, the slow pace of this book makes sense. Every day of his trip, Stevens writes a bit in his diary - sometimes he reports what he did and what he saw that day, but often he uses the time reflect on his career and muse about what it means to be a good servant.

"And let me now posit this: 'dignity' has to do crucially with a butler's ability not to abandon the profession he inhabits. Lesser butlers will abandon their professional being for the private one at the least provocation. For such persons, being a butler is like playing some pantomime role; a small push, a slight stumble, and the facade will drop off to reveal the actor underneath. The great butlers are great by virtue of their ability to inhabit their professional role and inhabit it to the utmost; they will not be shaken out by external events, however surprising, alarming, or vexing. They wear their professionalism as a decent gentleman will wear his suit: he will not let ruffians or circumstances tear it off him in the public gaze; he will discard it when, and only when, he wills to do so, and this will invariably be when he is entirely alone. It is, as I say, a matter of 'dignity'."

Stevens's reflections on his career are quietly fascinating because they reveal truths to the reader that the narrator remains unaware of. Stevens tells us about his relationship with his father, his strained rapport with the head housekeeper of Darlington Hall, and his employer Lord Darlington. Very quickly we realize some important things that have eluded Stevens: his father was emotionally unavailable and Stevens has never fully dealt with his death, Stevens is probably in love with the housekeeper, and Lord Darlington was not nearly as perfect as Stevens wants to believe he was. The willful ignorance and refusal to see things the way they really are was also present in Never Let Me Go, but it didn't irritate me here. I wasn't angry with Stevens for failing to see what I could see; mostly I was sad for him, and a little envious of the confident bubble he lived in. His journey is slow, uneventful, and there is no real resolution (God, it's exactly like Never Let Me Go there) but there was a sad beauty to it, and I loved every page.

"For it is true, when I stood on that high ledge this morning and viewed the land before me, I distinctly felt that rare, yet unmistakable feeling - the feeling that one is in the presence of greatness. ...And yet what precisely is this 'greatness'? Just where, or in what, does it lie? I am quite aware it would take a far wiser head than mine to answer such a question, but if I were forced to hazard a guess, I would say that it is the very lack of obvious drama or spectacle that sets the beauty of our land apart. What is pertinent is the calmness of that beauty, its sense of restraint. It is as though the land knows of its own beauty, of its own greatness, and feels no need to shout it."

(actually, that's a pretty damn good explanation of Ishiguro's writing style too, now that I think about it)
]]> Gone with the Wind 18405 1037 Margaret Mitchell 0446365386 Madeline 5 the-list, historic-fiction The Simpsons where Apu, the Indian owner of the Kwik-E-Mart, takes the American citizenship test. Apu, who throughout the episode has demonstrated a much stronger grasp of American history than any of the American-born characters, is at the oral exam stage of the test. His examiner, a bored white guy, is asking the questions, and the following exchange occurs:

"BORED WHITE GUY: Okay, last question - what was the cause of the Civil War?

APU: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, economic factors both domestic and international contributed -

BORED WHITE GUY: Just say slavery, okay?

APU: Slavery it is, sir!"

That series of quotes, I think, perfectly reflects my experience leading up to reading Gone With the Wind. Like most children who attended a public school above the Mason-Dixon line, my first exposure to the Civil War was basically, "The South wanted to keep slaves, and the North knew that was wrong, so we went to war to free the slaves. And then we won, and everything was happy." At the other end of the spectrum is Margaret Mitchell, who grew up listening to Confederate veterans tell stories about the war, but she didn't learn that the South had actually lost until she was ten years old. So obviously, her epic story about the Civil War was going to paint a very different picture than the one I had grown up thinking was correct.

Going into the book, I was steeling myself for lots of good old fashioned racism, and was surprised at what I found. Yes, the characters are racist. But they're all racist - black and white - and what interested me most was that class, rather than race, seemed to matter most. Scarlett and the other white characters hate lower-class whites a hell of a lot more than they hate blacks, and the blacks themselves draw very distinct class lines. Pork, the O'Hara's butler, looks down not only on poor whites but also on black characters of a lower social standing than himself. During the war, when only a few loyal slaves have remained at Tara, Scarlett has to farm the land herself and wants Pork to help plow. He refuses, stating angrily that plowing is field hand's work and he has never been a field hand. It is important to note that at this point they are starving, and farming is their only chance at food.

There's a lot of starving going on in this book, and a lot of fear and unhappiness. When I started the book, I got a little frustrated with how it seemed to be dragging - it takes over 100 pages for the O'Hara's to arrive at the Twelve Oaks barbecue - but as I kept reading, and the novel plunged deeper and deeper into war-torn despair, I realized why Mitchell had spent so much time introducing these characters and their happy, easy pre-war lives: once the war starts, there is not a single truly happy moment for the rest of the book. Once all the men ride away from the barbecue to volunteer to fight, all that comes next is 800 pages of starvation and fear and death and sadness. We need those detailed descriptions of the plantations, the clothes, the food, the luxury, so we can understand how much Scarlett and her friends have lost. Near the middle of the book, when Scarlett is going barefoot and stealing food to keep from starving, we understand her longing when she thinks back to her life before the war, because we remember reading this description of the Twelve Oaks barbecue:

"The long trestled picnic table, covered with the finest of the Wilkes' linen, always stood under the thickest shade, with the backless benches on either side; and chairs, hassocks and cushions from the house were scattered about the glade for those who did not fancy the benches. At a distance great enough to keep the smoke away from the guests were the long pits where the meat cooked and the huge iron wash-pots from which the succulent odors of barbecue sauce and Brunswick stew floated."

We get only this brief, wonderful glimpse of the luxurious life these people were living, and then the war starts and everything goes straight to hell, like an 1800's version of the The Road:

"The gray troops passed by empty mansions, deserted farms, lonely cabins with doors ajar. Here and there some lone woman remained with a few frightened slaves, and they came to the road to cheer the soldiers, to bring buckets of water for the thirsty men, to bind up the wounds and bury their dead in their own family burying ground. But for the most part the sunny valley was abandoned and desolate and the untended crops stood in parching fields."

The war destroyed not only a region, but an entire way of life for thousands of people, and you can see Margaret Mitchell's mourning for this lost era in every page.

"They looked the same but different. What was it? Was it only that they were five years older? No, it was something more than the passing of time. Something had gone out of them, out of their world. Five years ago, a feeling of security had wrapped them all around so gently they were not even aware of it. In its shelter they had flowered. Now it was gone and with it had gone the old thrill, the old sense of something delightful and exciting just around the corner, the old glamour of their way of living.
...An ageless dignity, a timeless gallantry still clung about them and would cling until they died but they would carry undying bitterness to their graves, a bitterness too deep for words. They were a soft-spoken, fierce, tired people who were defeated and would not know defeat, broken yet still standing determinedly erect."

This review is getting long-winded, and I've only started to explain everything about this book that makes it 5 stars. Aside from the history, the tone, the description, the general epic-ness of this epic, there are also the characters. And good lord. I could write another review entirely devoted to all the characters and why they are awesome despite being the last people you'd want to be in stuck in a room with, but I'll shorten it to a few characters.

Scarlett: Her transformation alone, from innocent flirt to flinty miser, is amazing in itself, but she's a powerful character no matter what stage she happens to be in. That being said, I hate hate hated her - I hated her shallowness, I hated her "unanalytical" mind, I hated her stupid crush on stupid useless Ashely, and she was so astoundingly unobservant throughout the book that it was all I could do not to scream at the pages. She was a great character, but that doesn't mean I have to like her.

Ashely: Christ, what a schmuck.

Mammy: The only character in the book I'd actually enjoy sitting down with. She had all the other character's best qualities, and none of their glaring faults. She had Melanie's grace, Ashely's kindness, Scarlett's strength, and Rhett's survival instincts. Mammy rocked my world.

Melanie: I kept going back and forth, switching between "she's the dumbest person ever" to "she's the best person in this book." I still can't really be sure where I stand on Melanie. I would want her on my side, but like Scarlett, I might want to slap her every now and then.

Rhett: Oh, Rhett. I so wanted to like him. And I did, when he was telling off the Confederates or Scarlett, when he was putting people in their place, and when he was being the only sensible character in the goddamn book. But then he would talk to Scarlett, and I would be drowned in wave after wave of smirking condescension. He was rude and selfish and had that attitude of "silly woman, your anger is so amusing" that is an instant dealbreaker for me. I suffer from PTTD (Post-Traumatic Twilight Disorder) so whenever I encounter a male character who exhibits even a little bit of condescension and protective instincts towards the womenfolk, I start twitching and picturing Robert Pattinson's ugly face simpering "I like to watch you sleep", and then I have to watch old episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer until the shakes stop. S ultimately, my verdict on Rhett was that he could go fuck himself and wipe that stupid smirk off his face. ]]> 4.30 1936 Gone with the Wind
author: Margaret Mitchell
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.30
book published: 1936
rating: 5
read at: 2011/01/01
date added: 2014/01/10
shelves: the-list, historic-fiction
review:
There's an episode of The Simpsons where Apu, the Indian owner of the Kwik-E-Mart, takes the American citizenship test. Apu, who throughout the episode has demonstrated a much stronger grasp of American history than any of the American-born characters, is at the oral exam stage of the test. His examiner, a bored white guy, is asking the questions, and the following exchange occurs:

"BORED WHITE GUY: Okay, last question - what was the cause of the Civil War?

APU: Actually, there were numerous causes. Aside from the obvious schism between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, economic factors both domestic and international contributed -

BORED WHITE GUY: Just say slavery, okay?

APU: Slavery it is, sir!"

That series of quotes, I think, perfectly reflects my experience leading up to reading Gone With the Wind. Like most children who attended a public school above the Mason-Dixon line, my first exposure to the Civil War was basically, "The South wanted to keep slaves, and the North knew that was wrong, so we went to war to free the slaves. And then we won, and everything was happy." At the other end of the spectrum is Margaret Mitchell, who grew up listening to Confederate veterans tell stories about the war, but she didn't learn that the South had actually lost until she was ten years old. So obviously, her epic story about the Civil War was going to paint a very different picture than the one I had grown up thinking was correct.

Going into the book, I was steeling myself for lots of good old fashioned racism, and was surprised at what I found. Yes, the characters are racist. But they're all racist - black and white - and what interested me most was that class, rather than race, seemed to matter most. Scarlett and the other white characters hate lower-class whites a hell of a lot more than they hate blacks, and the blacks themselves draw very distinct class lines. Pork, the O'Hara's butler, looks down not only on poor whites but also on black characters of a lower social standing than himself. During the war, when only a few loyal slaves have remained at Tara, Scarlett has to farm the land herself and wants Pork to help plow. He refuses, stating angrily that plowing is field hand's work and he has never been a field hand. It is important to note that at this point they are starving, and farming is their only chance at food.

There's a lot of starving going on in this book, and a lot of fear and unhappiness. When I started the book, I got a little frustrated with how it seemed to be dragging - it takes over 100 pages for the O'Hara's to arrive at the Twelve Oaks barbecue - but as I kept reading, and the novel plunged deeper and deeper into war-torn despair, I realized why Mitchell had spent so much time introducing these characters and their happy, easy pre-war lives: once the war starts, there is not a single truly happy moment for the rest of the book. Once all the men ride away from the barbecue to volunteer to fight, all that comes next is 800 pages of starvation and fear and death and sadness. We need those detailed descriptions of the plantations, the clothes, the food, the luxury, so we can understand how much Scarlett and her friends have lost. Near the middle of the book, when Scarlett is going barefoot and stealing food to keep from starving, we understand her longing when she thinks back to her life before the war, because we remember reading this description of the Twelve Oaks barbecue:

"The long trestled picnic table, covered with the finest of the Wilkes' linen, always stood under the thickest shade, with the backless benches on either side; and chairs, hassocks and cushions from the house were scattered about the glade for those who did not fancy the benches. At a distance great enough to keep the smoke away from the guests were the long pits where the meat cooked and the huge iron wash-pots from which the succulent odors of barbecue sauce and Brunswick stew floated."

We get only this brief, wonderful glimpse of the luxurious life these people were living, and then the war starts and everything goes straight to hell, like an 1800's version of the The Road:

"The gray troops passed by empty mansions, deserted farms, lonely cabins with doors ajar. Here and there some lone woman remained with a few frightened slaves, and they came to the road to cheer the soldiers, to bring buckets of water for the thirsty men, to bind up the wounds and bury their dead in their own family burying ground. But for the most part the sunny valley was abandoned and desolate and the untended crops stood in parching fields."

The war destroyed not only a region, but an entire way of life for thousands of people, and you can see Margaret Mitchell's mourning for this lost era in every page.

"They looked the same but different. What was it? Was it only that they were five years older? No, it was something more than the passing of time. Something had gone out of them, out of their world. Five years ago, a feeling of security had wrapped them all around so gently they were not even aware of it. In its shelter they had flowered. Now it was gone and with it had gone the old thrill, the old sense of something delightful and exciting just around the corner, the old glamour of their way of living.
...An ageless dignity, a timeless gallantry still clung about them and would cling until they died but they would carry undying bitterness to their graves, a bitterness too deep for words. They were a soft-spoken, fierce, tired people who were defeated and would not know defeat, broken yet still standing determinedly erect."

This review is getting long-winded, and I've only started to explain everything about this book that makes it 5 stars. Aside from the history, the tone, the description, the general epic-ness of this epic, there are also the characters. And good lord. I could write another review entirely devoted to all the characters and why they are awesome despite being the last people you'd want to be in stuck in a room with, but I'll shorten it to a few characters.

Scarlett: Her transformation alone, from innocent flirt to flinty miser, is amazing in itself, but she's a powerful character no matter what stage she happens to be in. That being said, I hate hate hated her - I hated her shallowness, I hated her "unanalytical" mind, I hated her stupid crush on stupid useless Ashely, and she was so astoundingly unobservant throughout the book that it was all I could do not to scream at the pages. She was a great character, but that doesn't mean I have to like her.

Ashely: Christ, what a schmuck.

Mammy: The only character in the book I'd actually enjoy sitting down with. She had all the other character's best qualities, and none of their glaring faults. She had Melanie's grace, Ashely's kindness, Scarlett's strength, and Rhett's survival instincts. Mammy rocked my world.

Melanie: I kept going back and forth, switching between "she's the dumbest person ever" to "she's the best person in this book." I still can't really be sure where I stand on Melanie. I would want her on my side, but like Scarlett, I might want to slap her every now and then.

Rhett: Oh, Rhett. I so wanted to like him. And I did, when he was telling off the Confederates or Scarlett, when he was putting people in their place, and when he was being the only sensible character in the goddamn book. But then he would talk to Scarlett, and I would be drowned in wave after wave of smirking condescension. He was rude and selfish and had that attitude of "silly woman, your anger is so amusing" that is an instant dealbreaker for me. I suffer from PTTD (Post-Traumatic Twilight Disorder) so whenever I encounter a male character who exhibits even a little bit of condescension and protective instincts towards the womenfolk, I start twitching and picturing Robert Pattinson's ugly face simpering "I like to watch you sleep", and then I have to watch old episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer until the shakes stop. S ultimately, my verdict on Rhett was that he could go fuck himself and wipe that stupid smirk off his face.
]]> Wuthering Heights 6185 You can find the redesigned cover of this edition HERE.

At the centre of this novel is the passionate love between Catherine Earnshaw and Heathcliff - recounted with such emotional intensity that a plain tale of the Yorkshire moors acquires the depth and simplicity of ancient tragedy.

This best-selling Norton Critical Edition is based on the 1847 first edition of the novel. For the Fourth Edition, the editor has collated the 1847 text with several modern editions and has corrected a number of variants, including accidentals. The text is accompanied by entirely new explanatory annotations.

New to the fourth Edition are twelve of Emily Bronte's letters regarding the publication of the 1847 edition of Wuthering Heights as well as the evolution of the 1850 edition, prose and poetry selections by the author, four reviews of the novel, and poetry selections by the author, four reviews of the novel, and Edward Chitham's insightful and informative chronology of the creative process behind the beloved work.

Five major critical interpretations of Wuthering Heights are included, three of them new to the Fourth Edition. A Stuart Daley considers the importance of chronology in the novel. J. Hillis Miller examines Wuthering Heights's problems of genre and critical reputation. Sandra M. Gilbert assesses the role of Victorian Christianity plays in the novel, while Martha Nussbaum traces the novel's romanticism. Finally, Lin Haire-Sargeant scrutinizes the role of Heathcliff in film adaptations of Wuthering Heights.

A Chronology and updated Selected Bibliography are also included.]]> 464 Emily Brontë Madeline 1 the-list, ugh
Good stuff: I liked some of the characters. Ellen was sweet, and seemed to be the only sensible person in the story. And lord, does she get put through a lot of shit. Girlfriend needs a hug and a spa weekend after all she's been through. I also liked Catherine II and Hareton - unlike their romantic predecessors (and believe me, we'll get to those two soon), they were likeable most of the time. Sure, they had their jackass moments, but considering their respective upbringings, can you really blame them? Also, they reminded me of Bender and Claire from The Breakfast Club. Like I said, kind of irritating and stupid, but sweet.
I also appreciated the incredible passion of the story (and the passionate emotions it raised in me) Sure, I hated Heathcliff, but even I swooned a little during his final scene with Cathy. Sure, Emily Bronte has written the most terrifying portrayal of a love story I've ever seen (Fatal Attraction? Pfft.), but she did it really, really well. Terrifying as it is. Which brings me to the next section of this review...

Bad Stuff: I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone thinks this is a love story. It's a horror story of love and passion gone horribly, horribly wrong, and Heathcliff is one of the greatest villains ever created in literature.
Notice I said "villain" and not "antihero." Heathcliff is not an antihero. He is a sociopath, and for the last fifty pages of the story I wanted to violently murder him so badly that my hands were shaking as I held the book. He is evil.
Cathy doesn't get my sympathy, either. She was a spoiled, unfeeling bitch during every moment she was present in the story, and it's only because she was dead by page 200 that she didn't make me as angry as Heathcliff did - she simply didn't have enough time.
But let's get back to Heathcliff - I cannot outline here all of the evil things he did over the course of the story, and to do so would probably be to give away spoilers. Let me just say this: I now understand completely why Wuthering Heights is being advertised in bookstores as "Bella and Edwards Favorite Book!". It should be. As I said in a comment on one of my statuses: Edward Cullen is good, but Heathcliff wrote the fucking book on Domestic Abuse Thinly Disguised As Love.
I don't know why so many readers get all fangirly over Heathcliff. He's an asshole, a sociopath, and even he knows how evil he is. As he says of Isabella, a girl he marries and then treats so horribly I can't even talk about it right now: "She abandoned them under a delusion...picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character, and acting on the false impression she has cherished."

Hear that, Heathcliff fangirls? Even he thinks you're all morons for liking him.

And, just to end this on a good note: I've shared this webcomic before, but it fits here too because, let's face it, the Bronte sisters had ]]> 3.89 1847 Wuthering Heights
author: Emily Brontë
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.89
book published: 1847
rating: 1
read at: 2010/04/01
date added: 2014/01/08
shelves: the-list, ugh
review:
If you've been following my status updates as I read this book, you can probably guess what kind of review this is going to be. (answer: the best kind!) So let's get the good stuff out of the way first, and then I can start the ranting.

Good stuff: I liked some of the characters. Ellen was sweet, and seemed to be the only sensible person in the story. And lord, does she get put through a lot of shit. Girlfriend needs a hug and a spa weekend after all she's been through. I also liked Catherine II and Hareton - unlike their romantic predecessors (and believe me, we'll get to those two soon), they were likeable most of the time. Sure, they had their jackass moments, but considering their respective upbringings, can you really blame them? Also, they reminded me of Bender and Claire from The Breakfast Club. Like I said, kind of irritating and stupid, but sweet.
I also appreciated the incredible passion of the story (and the passionate emotions it raised in me) Sure, I hated Heathcliff, but even I swooned a little during his final scene with Cathy. Sure, Emily Bronte has written the most terrifying portrayal of a love story I've ever seen (Fatal Attraction? Pfft.), but she did it really, really well. Terrifying as it is. Which brings me to the next section of this review...

Bad Stuff: I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone thinks this is a love story. It's a horror story of love and passion gone horribly, horribly wrong, and Heathcliff is one of the greatest villains ever created in literature.
Notice I said "villain" and not "antihero." Heathcliff is not an antihero. He is a sociopath, and for the last fifty pages of the story I wanted to violently murder him so badly that my hands were shaking as I held the book. He is evil.
Cathy doesn't get my sympathy, either. She was a spoiled, unfeeling bitch during every moment she was present in the story, and it's only because she was dead by page 200 that she didn't make me as angry as Heathcliff did - she simply didn't have enough time.
But let's get back to Heathcliff - I cannot outline here all of the evil things he did over the course of the story, and to do so would probably be to give away spoilers. Let me just say this: I now understand completely why Wuthering Heights is being advertised in bookstores as "Bella and Edwards Favorite Book!". It should be. As I said in a comment on one of my statuses: Edward Cullen is good, but Heathcliff wrote the fucking book on Domestic Abuse Thinly Disguised As Love.
I don't know why so many readers get all fangirly over Heathcliff. He's an asshole, a sociopath, and even he knows how evil he is. As he says of Isabella, a girl he marries and then treats so horribly I can't even talk about it right now: "She abandoned them under a delusion...picturing in me a hero of romance, and expecting unlimited indulgences from my chivalrous devotion. I can hardly regard her in the light of a rational creature, so obstinately has she persisted in forming a fabulous notion of my character, and acting on the false impression she has cherished."

Hear that, Heathcliff fangirls? Even he thinks you're all morons for liking him.

And, just to end this on a good note: I've shared this webcomic before, but it fits here too because, let's face it, the Bronte sisters had
]]> Choke 29059 Victor Mancini, a medical-school dropout, is an antihero for our deranged times.

Needing to pay elder care for his mother, Victor has devised an ingenious scam: he pretends to choke on pieces of food while dining in upscale restaurants. He then allows himself to be “saved� by fellow patrons who, feeling responsible for Victor’s life, go on to send checks to support him.

When he’s not pulling this stunt, Victor cruises sexual addiction recovery workshops for action, visits his addled mom, and spends his days working at a colonial theme park.

His creator, Chuck Palahniuk, renowned author of classics like Fight Club, is the visionary we need and the satirist we deserve.]]> 293 Chuck Palahniuk 0385720920 Madeline 4 the-list After a couple pages, you won't want to be here. So forget it. Go away. Get out while you're still in one piece.
Save yourself.
...
What happens here is first going to piss you off. After that it just gets worse and worse."

I always feel a little stupid reviewing a Chuck Palahniuk book. It always seems like a futile effort. Especially with Choke, which opens with the above quote. How can you review a book like that? If you like it, you're an idiot who's too easily amused, and if you hate it, Chuck Palahniuk is just laughing at you, going, "Dude, I told you." You can't win.
Chuck Palahniuk seems like the type of author who thrives on negative responses. The man's probably wallpapered his bathroom with all the reviews trashing his books, and every morning he looks at them and cackles maniacally while he takes a shit. He doesn't write books for entertainment, or to make you think, or to (god forbid!) preach a moral or a message. Chuck Palahniuk is that kid on the playground who dug up bugs and shoved them in girls' faces just to see them run away screaming. His goal is to offend people, shock them, and just plain gross them out. Not much else.
Choke is a little more disgusting than Fight Club, and much, much less disgusting than Haunted. That's pretty much all I can say.

So why am I giving this book four stars?
Good question. I'm kind of wondering that myself.

I liked this book because I was supposed to hate it. ]]> 3.71 2001 Choke
author: Chuck Palahniuk
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.71
book published: 2001
rating: 4
read at:
date added: 2014/01/08
shelves: the-list
review:
"If you're going to read this, don't bother.
After a couple pages, you won't want to be here. So forget it. Go away. Get out while you're still in one piece.
Save yourself.
...
What happens here is first going to piss you off. After that it just gets worse and worse."

I always feel a little stupid reviewing a Chuck Palahniuk book. It always seems like a futile effort. Especially with Choke, which opens with the above quote. How can you review a book like that? If you like it, you're an idiot who's too easily amused, and if you hate it, Chuck Palahniuk is just laughing at you, going, "Dude, I told you." You can't win.
Chuck Palahniuk seems like the type of author who thrives on negative responses. The man's probably wallpapered his bathroom with all the reviews trashing his books, and every morning he looks at them and cackles maniacally while he takes a shit. He doesn't write books for entertainment, or to make you think, or to (god forbid!) preach a moral or a message. Chuck Palahniuk is that kid on the playground who dug up bugs and shoved them in girls' faces just to see them run away screaming. His goal is to offend people, shock them, and just plain gross them out. Not much else.
Choke is a little more disgusting than Fight Club, and much, much less disgusting than Haunted. That's pretty much all I can say.

So why am I giving this book four stars?
Good question. I'm kind of wondering that myself.

I liked this book because I was supposed to hate it.
]]> Dracula 17245 You can find an alternative cover edition for this ISBN here and here.

When Jonathan Harker visits Transylvania to help Count Dracula with the purchase of a London house, he makes a series of horrific discoveries about his client. Soon afterwards, various bizarre incidents unfold in England: an apparently unmanned ship is wrecked off the coast of Whitby; a young woman discovers strange puncture marks on her neck; and the inmate of a lunatic asylum raves about the 'Master' and his imminent arrival.

In Dracula, Bram Stoker created one of the great masterpieces of the horror genre, brilliantly evoking a nightmare world of vampires and vampire hunters and also illuminating the dark corners of Victorian sexuality and desire.

This Norton Critical Edition includes a rich selection of background and source materials in three areas: Contexts includes probable inspirations for Dracula in the earlier works of James Malcolm Rymer and Emily Gerard. Also included are a discussion of Stoker's working notes for the novel and "Dracula's Guest," the original opening chapter to Dracula. Reviews and Reactions reprints five early reviews of the novel. "Dramatic and Film Variations" focuses on theater and film adaptations of Dracula, two indications of the novel's unwavering appeal. David J. Skal, Gregory A. Waller, and Nina Auerbach offer their varied perspectives. Checklists of both dramatic and film adaptations are included.

Criticism collects seven theoretical interpretations of Dracula by Phyllis A. Roth, Carol A. Senf, Franco Moretti, Christopher Craft, Bram Dijkstra, Stephen D. Arata, and Talia Schaffer.

A Chronology and a Selected Bibliography are included.]]> 488 Bram Stoker 0393970124 Madeline 3 the-list
Anyway, on to the bit where I review the book: it wasn't exactly what I was expecting (for instance, the whole novel consists of diary entries and letters written by the main characters - not Dracula, though), and no one even says the word "vampire" until page 165. And they're talking about the bats.
It was genuinely creepy, but the towards the end of the book the pace suddenly overdosed on NyQuil and started riding a sloth towards the climax. (why does that sound like a porno? Ahem, moving on) Seriously, our merry gang of vampire hunters have figured out that Count Dracula is, in fact, a bloodsucker (took them long enough; I spent the first half of the book mentally screaming at the pages "He's a fucking vampire! Vampire vampire vampire!"), and are traveling to Transylvania to go all Buffy on his undead ass. Great, but first we have to read pages and pages of "and then we made our travel arrangements", "and then we bought lots of fur coats because it is cold out", and "we were all super patronzing to Madam Mina, because in case you've forgotten she is a delicate flower and her weak lady-brain cannot handle the stress of this trip."
Let me talk about Mina for a minute here: after finishing the book, I'm very, very tempted to write a Dracula fan fic entitled "Mina Harker: Vampire Hunter". She will be super badass and wear lots of leather and kill tons of vampires (first on her list: Carlise Cullen), and I guess Jonathan can come too. I want to do this because, for the entire book, I kept waiting for Mina to unleash her inner awesome, because I knew it was there. She's super smart - she's the one who figures out how Dracula is getting back to his castle - is actually really brave, no matter how often she says she was scared shitless by the various undead goings-on; and since she has a psychic connection with Dracula towards the end of the book she's a hell of a lot more useful than Jonathan's whiny ass. She needed to leave him, and then run away with Van Helsing so they could fight vampires together.
It would look exactly like this


and it would be MADE OF AWESOME.


]]> 4.02 1897 Dracula
author: Bram Stoker
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.02
book published: 1897
rating: 3
read at:
date added: 2014/01/08
shelves: the-list
review:
FINALLY finished it. Assigned reading, in addition to being painfully boring, takes away serious time from The List.

Anyway, on to the bit where I review the book: it wasn't exactly what I was expecting (for instance, the whole novel consists of diary entries and letters written by the main characters - not Dracula, though), and no one even says the word "vampire" until page 165. And they're talking about the bats.
It was genuinely creepy, but the towards the end of the book the pace suddenly overdosed on NyQuil and started riding a sloth towards the climax. (why does that sound like a porno? Ahem, moving on) Seriously, our merry gang of vampire hunters have figured out that Count Dracula is, in fact, a bloodsucker (took them long enough; I spent the first half of the book mentally screaming at the pages "He's a fucking vampire! Vampire vampire vampire!"), and are traveling to Transylvania to go all Buffy on his undead ass. Great, but first we have to read pages and pages of "and then we made our travel arrangements", "and then we bought lots of fur coats because it is cold out", and "we were all super patronzing to Madam Mina, because in case you've forgotten she is a delicate flower and her weak lady-brain cannot handle the stress of this trip."
Let me talk about Mina for a minute here: after finishing the book, I'm very, very tempted to write a Dracula fan fic entitled "Mina Harker: Vampire Hunter". She will be super badass and wear lots of leather and kill tons of vampires (first on her list: Carlise Cullen), and I guess Jonathan can come too. I want to do this because, for the entire book, I kept waiting for Mina to unleash her inner awesome, because I knew it was there. She's super smart - she's the one who figures out how Dracula is getting back to his castle - is actually really brave, no matter how often she says she was scared shitless by the various undead goings-on; and since she has a psychic connection with Dracula towards the end of the book she's a hell of a lot more useful than Jonathan's whiny ass. She needed to leave him, and then run away with Van Helsing so they could fight vampires together.
It would look exactly like this


and it would be MADE OF AWESOME.



]]> Never Let Me Go 6334 288 Kazuo Ishiguro 1400078776 Madeline 1
Imagine if someone decided to write a book about this kind of person. The result is Never Let Me Go.

(semi-spoilers ahoy, you've been warned) So the book is about a sort of alternate-universe England, where people are cloned and the resulting kids are raised in isolated boarding schools, spending all their time painting and playing sports and getting vague hints about how when they get older they'll have to make "donations." We learn (eventually and with no drama whatsoever) that these kids were created specifically as future organ donors, and that's all they're meant for. Ishiguro introduces us to Kathy, the narrator, and her friends who lived at one of these schools with her - Ruth and Tommy. As I said, we gradually and laboriously learn about the school's real purpose, but it seems almost like a subplot, because the majority of the book is just Kathy nattering on about her school and how she and Ruth got into a fight this one time and also she had a crush on Tommy but he and Ruth were dating so Kathy had sex with some other random guys and oh my god can we get back to the organ donor thing? Seriously the whole book is like that - we get the sense that there's some creepy futuristic stuff going on in the background, but our protagonists don't care because they're too busy telling us about that one time Kathy lost her favorite cassette tape and it was very upsetting.

Even when it seems like a plot's about to start, it's always a false alarm. The trip to a nearby town that the three characters take to find a woman they think may be Ruth's "possible" (a person she may have been cloned from) doesn't pan out, and we realize that the real point of the trip was an attempt to convince the reader that Tommy and Kathy have some sort of romantic attraction to each other. Ruth's possible, and everything it might have meant, is abandoned so that Ishiguro can have another chance to demonstrate his astonishing inability to create any kind of chemistry between two characters.

And the end. Without giving anything away, I'll just say that Kathy and Tommy finally get all the answers about their school and what was actually going on, and they respond by...going about their lives in the exact same way as before.

I mean, good God. Even though this is supposed to be some sort of more intellectual science fiction, I don't care. There's cloning and dystopian undertones; ergo it is sci-fi. And I like my sci-fi loud, shiny, and dramatic, with lots of explosions and computers that talk.

There's a reason Harry Potter starts when he gets his Hogwarts letter, folks. Because no one wants to hear about ordinary people being ordinary - that's kind of the whole point of fiction.]]> 3.85 2005 Never Let Me Go
author: Kazuo Ishiguro
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.85
book published: 2005
rating: 1
read at: 2009/12/01
date added: 2014/01/07
shelves: science-fiction, the-list, ugh
review:
You know those random stock characters in sci-fi/action movies, the ones who never get names or any lines? They're always spending their precious few minutes of screen time getting shoved out of the way as the hero hurtles desperately down a hallway, or watching from a safe distance as a climactic fight goes on, or diving out of the way whenever a murderous cyborg smashes through their office window. Have you ever wondered what those people's lives were like? Have you ever thought to yourself, "Man, this movie's interesting and all, but I want to know more about that guy who owned the hotel where Sarah Conner hid from the Terminator. I bet he leads a fascinating life." (believe me, he doesn't.)

Imagine if someone decided to write a book about this kind of person. The result is Never Let Me Go.

(semi-spoilers ahoy, you've been warned) So the book is about a sort of alternate-universe England, where people are cloned and the resulting kids are raised in isolated boarding schools, spending all their time painting and playing sports and getting vague hints about how when they get older they'll have to make "donations." We learn (eventually and with no drama whatsoever) that these kids were created specifically as future organ donors, and that's all they're meant for. Ishiguro introduces us to Kathy, the narrator, and her friends who lived at one of these schools with her - Ruth and Tommy. As I said, we gradually and laboriously learn about the school's real purpose, but it seems almost like a subplot, because the majority of the book is just Kathy nattering on about her school and how she and Ruth got into a fight this one time and also she had a crush on Tommy but he and Ruth were dating so Kathy had sex with some other random guys and oh my god can we get back to the organ donor thing? Seriously the whole book is like that - we get the sense that there's some creepy futuristic stuff going on in the background, but our protagonists don't care because they're too busy telling us about that one time Kathy lost her favorite cassette tape and it was very upsetting.

Even when it seems like a plot's about to start, it's always a false alarm. The trip to a nearby town that the three characters take to find a woman they think may be Ruth's "possible" (a person she may have been cloned from) doesn't pan out, and we realize that the real point of the trip was an attempt to convince the reader that Tommy and Kathy have some sort of romantic attraction to each other. Ruth's possible, and everything it might have meant, is abandoned so that Ishiguro can have another chance to demonstrate his astonishing inability to create any kind of chemistry between two characters.

And the end. Without giving anything away, I'll just say that Kathy and Tommy finally get all the answers about their school and what was actually going on, and they respond by...going about their lives in the exact same way as before.

I mean, good God. Even though this is supposed to be some sort of more intellectual science fiction, I don't care. There's cloning and dystopian undertones; ergo it is sci-fi. And I like my sci-fi loud, shiny, and dramatic, with lots of explosions and computers that talk.

There's a reason Harry Potter starts when he gets his Hogwarts letter, folks. Because no one wants to hear about ordinary people being ordinary - that's kind of the whole point of fiction.
]]> The Three Musketeers 7190 The Three Musketeers is the most famous of Alexandre Dumas' historical novels and one of the most popular adventure novels ever written.

Dumas' swashbuckling epic chronicles the adventures of d'Artagnan, a brash young man from the countryside who journeys to Paris in 1625 hoping to become a musketeer and guard to King Louis XIII. Before long, he finds treachery and court intrigue,and also three boon companions, the daring swordsmen Athos, Porthos, and Aramis. Together, the four strive heroically to defend the honor of their queen against the powerful Cardinal Richelieu and the seductive spy Milady.]]> 625 Alexandre Dumas Madeline 5 Queen Margot couldn't be topped. I should have known better.
Honestly, I do not have enough space to fully explain all the ways I adore this book. But I'll try to condense it.
-First, the four main characters. Love, love, love, and more love. Aramis and Porthos - the Merry and Pippin of the group, if you'll excuse the extremely dorkish LOTR cross-reference - made me laugh; D'Artagnan was charming even though (or maybe because) he had multiple moments where, were I in the story, I wouldn't know whether to kiss him or smack him upside the head; and the pure unfiltered AWESOME that is Athos cannot be put into words.
-My copy of the book is 754 pages, but I was able to finish it in less than two weeks and not even notice the length because the story was so engrossing. As soon as I finished it, I wanted to flip back to page 1 and start all over again.
-Duels. Lots and lots of duels.
-The only complaint I had regarding the other Dumas book I'd read before this (Queen Margot, as previously mentioned) was that there was a total lack of what I will bluntly call the dirty details. In Margot, all the sex scenes were kept out of the way and, judging by the description Dumas gave us of the characters' nighttime activities, no one managed to get laid for the entire book. The Three Musketeers, on the other hand, is by no means a bodice-ripper but is still very romantic. And then there's the scene where D'Artagnan decides that nailing Milady will be a good way to get revenge on her for kidnapping his girlfriend. Which brings me to my next point...
-Milady. Holy crap. I try to come up with words to describe her, but I can't do it because my brain sort of slows down until all I can hear are the words "Most. Badass. Character. Ever." repeating in my head over and over while the song "Cold Hard Bitch" by JET starts playing in the background. (if that makes any sense at all. Just go with it, okay?)
But seriously, let's talk about Milady for a minute. She keeps poison in her ring, seduces a guard who has been specifically warned that she'll try to seduce him, stabs herself in the chest to make people think she killed herself, regularly tries to assassinate D'Artagnan and his friends, and was generally such a psychotic bitch that even Cardinal Richelieu was afraid of her.

UPDATE

Dear Hollywood,

What the is wrong with you?

Seriously, fuck you guys.

Love,
Madeline]]> 4.09 1844 The Three Musketeers
author: Alexandre Dumas
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.09
book published: 1844
rating: 5
read at:
date added: 2014/01/07
shelves: the-list, all-time-favorites, historic-fiction
review:
I thought that Queen Margot couldn't be topped. I should have known better.
Honestly, I do not have enough space to fully explain all the ways I adore this book. But I'll try to condense it.
-First, the four main characters. Love, love, love, and more love. Aramis and Porthos - the Merry and Pippin of the group, if you'll excuse the extremely dorkish LOTR cross-reference - made me laugh; D'Artagnan was charming even though (or maybe because) he had multiple moments where, were I in the story, I wouldn't know whether to kiss him or smack him upside the head; and the pure unfiltered AWESOME that is Athos cannot be put into words.
-My copy of the book is 754 pages, but I was able to finish it in less than two weeks and not even notice the length because the story was so engrossing. As soon as I finished it, I wanted to flip back to page 1 and start all over again.
-Duels. Lots and lots of duels.
-The only complaint I had regarding the other Dumas book I'd read before this (Queen Margot, as previously mentioned) was that there was a total lack of what I will bluntly call the dirty details. In Margot, all the sex scenes were kept out of the way and, judging by the description Dumas gave us of the characters' nighttime activities, no one managed to get laid for the entire book. The Three Musketeers, on the other hand, is by no means a bodice-ripper but is still very romantic. And then there's the scene where D'Artagnan decides that nailing Milady will be a good way to get revenge on her for kidnapping his girlfriend. Which brings me to my next point...
-Milady. Holy crap. I try to come up with words to describe her, but I can't do it because my brain sort of slows down until all I can hear are the words "Most. Badass. Character. Ever." repeating in my head over and over while the song "Cold Hard Bitch" by JET starts playing in the background. (if that makes any sense at all. Just go with it, okay?)
But seriously, let's talk about Milady for a minute. She keeps poison in her ring, seduces a guard who has been specifically warned that she'll try to seduce him, stabs herself in the chest to make people think she killed herself, regularly tries to assassinate D'Artagnan and his friends, and was generally such a psychotic bitch that even Cardinal Richelieu was afraid of her.

UPDATE

Dear Hollywood,

What the is wrong with you?

Seriously, fuck you guys.

Love,
Madeline
]]> Brave New World 5129 Brave New World is a searching vision of an unequal, technologically-advanced future where humans are genetically bred, socially indoctrinated, and pharmaceutically anesthetized to passively uphold an authoritarian ruling order–all at the cost of our freedom, full humanity, and perhaps also our souls. “A genius [who] who spent his life decrying the onward march of the Machine� (The New Yorker), Huxley was a man of incomparable talents: equally an artist, a spiritual seeker, and one of history’s keenest observers of human nature and civilization. Brave New World, his masterpiece, has enthralled and terrified millions of readers, and retains its urgent relevance to this day as both a warning to be heeded as we head into tomorrow and as thought-provoking, satisfying work of literature. Written in the shadow of the rise of fascism during the 1930s, Brave New Worldd likewise speaks to a 21st-century world dominated by mass-entertainment, technology, medicine and pharmaceuticals, the arts of persuasion, and the hidden influence of elites.

"Aldous Huxley is the greatest 20th century writer in English." —Chicago Tribune]]> 268 Aldous Huxley 0060929871 Madeline 5 science-fiction, the-list Brave New World in 1932. That's almost eighty years ago, but the book reads like it could have been written yesterday. (especially interesting to me was how Huxley was able to predict the future of both genetic engineering and the action blockbuster. Damn.)

I think I liked this one better than 1984, the book traditionally considered to be this one's counterpart. Not really sure why this is, but it's probably because this one has a clearer outsider character (the Savage) who can view the world Huxley created through his separate perspective.

In this light, I will give the last word to Neil Postman, who discussed the differences between Orwell and Huxley's views of the future:

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.
As Huxley remarked in 'Brave New World revisited,' the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny 'failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions.'
In 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' people are controlled by inflicting pain. In 'Brave New World' people are controlled by inflicting pleasure.
In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us." ]]> 3.99 1932 Brave New World
author: Aldous Huxley
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.99
book published: 1932
rating: 5
read at: 2010/02/01
date added: 2014/01/07
shelves: science-fiction, the-list
review:
Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World in 1932. That's almost eighty years ago, but the book reads like it could have been written yesterday. (especially interesting to me was how Huxley was able to predict the future of both genetic engineering and the action blockbuster. Damn.)

I think I liked this one better than 1984, the book traditionally considered to be this one's counterpart. Not really sure why this is, but it's probably because this one has a clearer outsider character (the Savage) who can view the world Huxley created through his separate perspective.

In this light, I will give the last word to Neil Postman, who discussed the differences between Orwell and Huxley's views of the future:

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.
As Huxley remarked in 'Brave New World revisited,' the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny 'failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions.'
In 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' people are controlled by inflicting pain. In 'Brave New World' people are controlled by inflicting pleasure.
In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us."
]]> Catch-22 168668
Set in Italy during World War II, this is the story of the incomparable, malingering bombardier, Yossarian, a hero who is furious because thousands of people he has never met are trying to kill him. But his real problem is not the enemy—it is his own army, which keeps increasing the number of missions the men must fly to complete their service. Yet if Yossarian makes any attempt to excuse himself from the perilous missions he’s assigned, he’ll be in violation of Catch-22, a hilariously sinister bureaucratic rule: a man is considered insane if he willingly continues to fly dangerous combat missions, but if he makes a formal request to be removed from duty, he is proven sane and therefore ineligible to be relieved.

This fiftieth-anniversary edition commemorates Joseph Heller’s masterpiece with a new introduction by Christopher Buckley; a wealth of critical essays and reviews by Norman Mailer, Alfred Kazin, Anthony Burgess, and others; rare papers and photos from Joseph Heller’s personal archive; and much more. Here, at last, is the definitive edition of a classic of world literature.]]> 453 Joseph Heller 0684833395 Madeline 1 War is a paradox. WE GET IT.

Read for: 12th grade AP English]]> 3.99 1961 Catch-22
author: Joseph Heller
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.99
book published: 1961
rating: 1
read at:
date added: 2014/01/06
shelves: the-list, assigned-reading, ugh
review:
This is one of those books that people think is either totally brilliant or just annoying. As one can tell from the rating, I fall into the latter catergory. Maybe I just can't appreciate the genius of Heller's prose, but I prefer character developement and plot to rambling confusing anecdotes that go nowhere.
War is a paradox. WE GET IT.

Read for: 12th grade AP English
]]> To the Lighthouse 59716
As time winds its way through their lives, the Ramsays face, alone and simultaneously, the greatest of human challenges and its greatest triumph—the human capacity for change.]]> 209 Virginia Woolf Madeline 4 the-list not eloquent, not talented, and friggin' pedestrian I am. No one else can write like Woolf, and no one should try, so I'm certainly not going to.

The second reason is that reviewing a book often means summarizing the plot, which in Woolf's case is useless. Were I to describe the plot of To the Lighthouse, I would probably end up with something like this (imagine lots of "um"s and confused pauses every few words): There's a large family who lives on an island, and one of the kids always wants to visit the lighthouse, but the parents keep putting it off. Also there are boarders living in the house, and we get to be inside the different characters' heads while they go about their business. Then some of them die."

See how pitiful that is? I can't convey how Woolf makes this story so amazing unordinary, and beautiful, so as usual I'm resorting to my tactic of quoting the book at ridiculous length.

"For if thought is like the keyboard of a piano, divided into so many notes, or like the alphabet is ranged in twenty-six letters all in order, then his splendid mind had no sort of difficulty in running over those letters one by one, firmly and accurately, until it had had reached, say, the letter Q. He reached Q. Very few people in the whole of England ever reach Q."

"Instantly, Mrs. Ramsay seemed to fold herself together, one petal closed in another, and the whole fabric fell in exhaustion upon itself, so that she had only strength enough to move her finger, in exquisite abandonment to exhaustion, across the page of Grimm's fairy story, while there throbbed through her, like of the pulse in a spring which has expanded to its full width and now gently ceases to beat, the rapture of successful creation."

"What passes for cookery in England is an abomination (they agreed). It is putting cabbages in water. It is roasting meat till it is like leather. It is cutting off the delicious skins of vegetables."

"So with the lamps all put out, the moon sunk, and a thin rain drumming on the roof a downpouring of immense darkness began. Nothing, it seemed, could survive the flood, the profusion of darkness which, creeping in at keyholes and crevices, stole round window blinds, came into bedrooms, swallowed up here a jug and basin, there a bowl of red and yellow dahlias, there the sharp edges and firm bulk of a chest of drawers. Not only was furniture confounded; there was scarcely anything left of body or mind by which one could say 'This is he' or 'This is she.' Sometimes a hand was raised as if to clutch something or ward off something, or somebody groaned, or somebody laughed aloud as if sharing a joke with nothingness."

"The nights now are full of wind and destruction; the trees plunge and bend and their leaves fly helter skelter until the lawn is plastered with them and they lie packed in gutters and choke rain pipes and scatter damp paths. Also the sea tosses itself and and breaks itself, and should any sleeper fancying that he might find on the beach an answer to his doubts, a sharer of his solitude, throw off his bedclothes and go down by himself to walk on the sand, no image with semblance of serving and divine promptitude comes readily to hand bringing the night to order and making the world reflect the compass of the soul. The hand dwindles in his hand; the voice bellows in his ear. Almost it would appear that it is useless in such confusion to ask the night those questions as to what, and why, and wherefore, which tempt the sleeper from his bed to seek an answer.
[Mr. Ramsay stumbling along a passage stretched his arms out one dark morning, but, Mrs. Ramsay having died rather suddenly the night before, he stretched his arms out. They remained empty.]"]]> 3.81 1927 To the Lighthouse
author: Virginia Woolf
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.81
book published: 1927
rating: 4
read at: 2011/02/01
date added: 2014/01/02
shelves: the-list
review:
As is often the case with Virginia Woolf's books, whenever I attempt to write a review I find myself at a complete loss for words. This is mostly because after reading her work I become aware of just how stunningly not eloquent, not talented, and friggin' pedestrian I am. No one else can write like Woolf, and no one should try, so I'm certainly not going to.

The second reason is that reviewing a book often means summarizing the plot, which in Woolf's case is useless. Were I to describe the plot of To the Lighthouse, I would probably end up with something like this (imagine lots of "um"s and confused pauses every few words): There's a large family who lives on an island, and one of the kids always wants to visit the lighthouse, but the parents keep putting it off. Also there are boarders living in the house, and we get to be inside the different characters' heads while they go about their business. Then some of them die."

See how pitiful that is? I can't convey how Woolf makes this story so amazing unordinary, and beautiful, so as usual I'm resorting to my tactic of quoting the book at ridiculous length.

"For if thought is like the keyboard of a piano, divided into so many notes, or like the alphabet is ranged in twenty-six letters all in order, then his splendid mind had no sort of difficulty in running over those letters one by one, firmly and accurately, until it had had reached, say, the letter Q. He reached Q. Very few people in the whole of England ever reach Q."

"Instantly, Mrs. Ramsay seemed to fold herself together, one petal closed in another, and the whole fabric fell in exhaustion upon itself, so that she had only strength enough to move her finger, in exquisite abandonment to exhaustion, across the page of Grimm's fairy story, while there throbbed through her, like of the pulse in a spring which has expanded to its full width and now gently ceases to beat, the rapture of successful creation."

"What passes for cookery in England is an abomination (they agreed). It is putting cabbages in water. It is roasting meat till it is like leather. It is cutting off the delicious skins of vegetables."

"So with the lamps all put out, the moon sunk, and a thin rain drumming on the roof a downpouring of immense darkness began. Nothing, it seemed, could survive the flood, the profusion of darkness which, creeping in at keyholes and crevices, stole round window blinds, came into bedrooms, swallowed up here a jug and basin, there a bowl of red and yellow dahlias, there the sharp edges and firm bulk of a chest of drawers. Not only was furniture confounded; there was scarcely anything left of body or mind by which one could say 'This is he' or 'This is she.' Sometimes a hand was raised as if to clutch something or ward off something, or somebody groaned, or somebody laughed aloud as if sharing a joke with nothingness."

"The nights now are full of wind and destruction; the trees plunge and bend and their leaves fly helter skelter until the lawn is plastered with them and they lie packed in gutters and choke rain pipes and scatter damp paths. Also the sea tosses itself and and breaks itself, and should any sleeper fancying that he might find on the beach an answer to his doubts, a sharer of his solitude, throw off his bedclothes and go down by himself to walk on the sand, no image with semblance of serving and divine promptitude comes readily to hand bringing the night to order and making the world reflect the compass of the soul. The hand dwindles in his hand; the voice bellows in his ear. Almost it would appear that it is useless in such confusion to ask the night those questions as to what, and why, and wherefore, which tempt the sleeper from his bed to seek an answer.
[Mr. Ramsay stumbling along a passage stretched his arms out one dark morning, but, Mrs. Ramsay having died rather suddenly the night before, he stretched his arms out. They remained empty.]"
]]> The Great Gatsby 4671 The only edition of the beloved classic that is authorized by Fitzgerald’s family and from his lifelong publisher.

This edition is the enduring original text, updated with the author’s own revisions, a foreword by his granddaughter, and with a new introduction by National Book Award winner Jesmyn Ward.

The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s third book, stands as the supreme achievement of his career. First published by Scribner in 1925, this quintessential novel of the Jazz Age has been acclaimed by generations of readers. The story of the mysteriously wealthy Jay Gatsby and his love for the beautiful Daisy Buchanan is an exquisitely crafted tale of America in the 1920s.]]> 180 F. Scott Fitzgerald 0743273567 Madeline 4 the-list
PS: The character Daisy appears good and innocent, but at her core is actually rotted and evil. Daisies are white on the outside and yellow on the inside. DO! YOU! SEE!]]> 3.93 1925 The Great Gatsby
author: F. Scott Fitzgerald
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.93
book published: 1925
rating: 4
read at:
date added: 2013/12/31
shelves: the-list
review:
Apparently the colors yellow and white represent sickness and goodness, respectively. I learned this from my Honors English friends after I had read the book on my own, and was very thankful I didn't have to read this for a class and be forced to write papers analyzing the terrifically brilliant symbolism and prose etc etc. It would have completed ruined an otherwise extremely good and exciting story.

PS: The character Daisy appears good and innocent, but at her core is actually rotted and evil. Daisies are white on the outside and yellow on the inside. DO! YOU! SEE!
]]> Rebecca 12873 Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again...

Working as a lady's companion, the heroine of Rebecca learns her place. Her future looks bleak until, on a trip to the South of France, she meets Max de Winter, a handsome widower whose sudden proposal of marriage takes her by surprise. She accepts, but whisked from glamorous Monte Carlo to the ominous and brooding Manderley, the new Mrs de Winter finds Max a changed man. And the memory of his dead wife Rebecca is forever kept alive by the forbidding housekeeper, Mrs Danvers...

Not since Jane Eyre has a heroine faced such difficulty with the Other Woman. An international bestseller that has never gone out of print, Rebecca is the haunting story of a young girl consumed by love and the struggle to find her identity.]]> 428 Daphne du Maurier 1844080382 Madeline 4 the-list, all-time-favorites Rebecca is the story of a young woman (her first name is never given) who marries wealthy Maxim de Winter, mostly to escape her life as a companion to a rich American woman. She moves with her new husband to his estate, Manderly, where she learns about her husband's previous wife, Rebecca. Although Rebecca drowned in the ocean near the house over a year ago, the house is still full of her prescence. Her old room is cleaned daily, and is left exactly the way it was when Rebecca still lived there. Her servant, the creepy and completely evil Mrs. Danvers, is still loyal to Rebecca, and the new Mrs. de Winter finds herself being compared to Rebecca by everyone she encounters. Over the course of the story, the narrator begins to inquire into Rebecca's past with her husband in an attempt to discover how she was able to captivate everyone she knew. As the story progresses, Mrs. de Winter discovers that not everyone at Manderley has been completely honest with her, and Rebecca herself is at the heart of all these secrets.
I really liked this book. Its plot was similar to Jane Eyre, but unlike Bronte, du Maurier doesn't reveal her biggest plot twist three-quarters of the way through the story - in Rebecca, the surprises keep coming until literally the last page, making it a much more enjoyable read. I also enjoyed the main character - she's clumsy and not very confident, but there's strength at her core, and this fact placed me on her side, despite her very human imperfections.]]> 4.19 1938 Rebecca
author: Daphne du Maurier
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.19
book published: 1938
rating: 4
read at:
date added: 2013/12/31
shelves: the-list, all-time-favorites
review:
"I dreamt I went to Manderley again."
Rebecca is the story of a young woman (her first name is never given) who marries wealthy Maxim de Winter, mostly to escape her life as a companion to a rich American woman. She moves with her new husband to his estate, Manderly, where she learns about her husband's previous wife, Rebecca. Although Rebecca drowned in the ocean near the house over a year ago, the house is still full of her prescence. Her old room is cleaned daily, and is left exactly the way it was when Rebecca still lived there. Her servant, the creepy and completely evil Mrs. Danvers, is still loyal to Rebecca, and the new Mrs. de Winter finds herself being compared to Rebecca by everyone she encounters. Over the course of the story, the narrator begins to inquire into Rebecca's past with her husband in an attempt to discover how she was able to captivate everyone she knew. As the story progresses, Mrs. de Winter discovers that not everyone at Manderley has been completely honest with her, and Rebecca herself is at the heart of all these secrets.
I really liked this book. Its plot was similar to Jane Eyre, but unlike Bronte, du Maurier doesn't reveal her biggest plot twist three-quarters of the way through the story - in Rebecca, the surprises keep coming until literally the last page, making it a much more enjoyable read. I also enjoyed the main character - she's clumsy and not very confident, but there's strength at her core, and this fact placed me on her side, despite her very human imperfections.
]]> Frankenstein 18490 This is an alternate cover edition for ISBN 9780141439471

'Now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart ...'

Obsessed with creating life itself, Victor Frankenstein plunders graveyards for the material to fashion a new being, which he shocks into life with electricity. But his botched creature, rejected by Frankenstein and denied human companionship, sets out to destroy his maker and all that he holds dear. Mary Shelley's chilling Gothic tale was conceived when she was only eighteen, living with her lover Percy Shelley near Byron's villa on Lake Geneva. It would become the world's most famous work of horror fiction, and remains a devastating exploration of the limits of human creativity.

Based on the third edition of 1831, this volume contains all the revisions Mary Shelley made to her story, as well as her 1831 introduction and Percy Bysshe Shelley's preface to the first edition. This revised edition includes as appendices a select collation of the texts of 1818 and 1831 together with 'A Fragment' by Lord Byron and Dr John Polidori's 'The Vampyre: A Tale'.]]> 288 Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley Madeline 3 science-fiction, the-list Ready for the other hand? Here we go: although I started out liking (or at least understanding) the two main characers - Frankenstein and his creation - by the end of the book, they had become so incredibly infuriating I almost stopped reading. First there was Dr. Frankenstein, who was (to quote Will Smith in I, Robot) "the dumbest smart person I've ever met." He reanimates this dead guy and then when it actually works, loses his shit and runs screaming from the lab. When he comes back several hours later, the creature is gone. What is the response of Frankenstein, a man brilliant enough to reanimate life in a dead person? "Oh thank goodness, the creature is gone. Clearly, he has disappeared entirely and I don't have to worry about finding him."
Then, when the creature has tracked him down several years later and tells him, "I will be with you on your wedding night" Frankenstein immediately starts worrying about his safety, not his fiance's. The creature has already killed Frankenstein's brother and best friend, and our genius doctor is like, "Elizabeth, my darling! Someone might be coming to kill me, because I am the only one left important enough to destroy, so I'll patrol the house with a gun while you lock yourself in this room. You'll be just fine, because I bet the creature will never think of killing you in order to punish me." Yeah. Three guesses how that turns out.
Like I said, I started out liking the creature. It wasn't his fault he was a reanimated corpse, after all, and I liked the fact that he seemed to learn how to speak by reading the complete works of Shakespeare. But then he starts killing off everyone Frankenstein cared about and saying how it hurt him to kill them more than it hurt the victims ("This hurts Daddy more than it hurts you," says the father as he belt-whips his child). Then once he's gone on a killing spree, the creature whines about how no one will accept him and everyone despises him and nobody understands him etc etc. Dude. Maybe people would warm up to you easier if you didn't have this habit of killing the loved ones of people who annoy you.

So in conclusion, I'm glad I read this, because it's a timeless classic etc etc, but I won't be reading it again. Also, the Wishbone version of this story was infinitely more enjoyable. So was Young Frankenstein. Come to think of it, catching an iceball with my face in 5th grade was more enjoyable than finishing this book, but that's beside the point.]]> 3.77 1818 Frankenstein
author: Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.77
book published: 1818
rating: 3
read at:
date added: 2013/12/30
shelves: science-fiction, the-list
review:
I'm torn about this book. On the one hand, it was genuinely creepy at parts and raised a lot of good questions about exactly how far science should be allowed to experiement. The language was eloquent, if a bit long-winded (which apparently was the work of Mary Shelley's editor, not her), and the story was so much better than the numerous movie versions of it that I wondered why movie makers even bothered changing the story in the first place.
Ready for the other hand? Here we go: although I started out liking (or at least understanding) the two main characers - Frankenstein and his creation - by the end of the book, they had become so incredibly infuriating I almost stopped reading. First there was Dr. Frankenstein, who was (to quote Will Smith in I, Robot) "the dumbest smart person I've ever met." He reanimates this dead guy and then when it actually works, loses his shit and runs screaming from the lab. When he comes back several hours later, the creature is gone. What is the response of Frankenstein, a man brilliant enough to reanimate life in a dead person? "Oh thank goodness, the creature is gone. Clearly, he has disappeared entirely and I don't have to worry about finding him."
Then, when the creature has tracked him down several years later and tells him, "I will be with you on your wedding night" Frankenstein immediately starts worrying about his safety, not his fiance's. The creature has already killed Frankenstein's brother and best friend, and our genius doctor is like, "Elizabeth, my darling! Someone might be coming to kill me, because I am the only one left important enough to destroy, so I'll patrol the house with a gun while you lock yourself in this room. You'll be just fine, because I bet the creature will never think of killing you in order to punish me." Yeah. Three guesses how that turns out.
Like I said, I started out liking the creature. It wasn't his fault he was a reanimated corpse, after all, and I liked the fact that he seemed to learn how to speak by reading the complete works of Shakespeare. But then he starts killing off everyone Frankenstein cared about and saying how it hurt him to kill them more than it hurt the victims ("This hurts Daddy more than it hurts you," says the father as he belt-whips his child). Then once he's gone on a killing spree, the creature whines about how no one will accept him and everyone despises him and nobody understands him etc etc. Dude. Maybe people would warm up to you easier if you didn't have this habit of killing the loved ones of people who annoy you.

So in conclusion, I'm glad I read this, because it's a timeless classic etc etc, but I won't be reading it again. Also, the Wishbone version of this story was infinitely more enjoyable. So was Young Frankenstein. Come to think of it, catching an iceball with my face in 5th grade was more enjoyable than finishing this book, but that's beside the point.
]]> The Stone Diaries 77554 The Stone Diaries is one ordinary woman's story of her journey through life. Born in 1905, Daisy Stone Goodwill drifts through the roles of child, wife, widow, and mother, and finally into her old age. Bewildered by her inability to understand her place in her own life, Daisy attempts to find a way to tell her story within a novel that is itself about the limitations of autobiography. Her life is vivid with incident, and yet she feels a sense of powerlessness. She listens, she observes, and through sheer force of imagination she becomes a witness of her own life: her birth, her death, and the troubling missed connections she discovers between. Daisy's struggle to find a place for herself in her own life is a paradigm of the unsettled decades of our era. A witty and compassionate anatomist of the human heart, Carol Shields has made distinctively her own that place where the domestic collides with the elemental. With irony and humor she weaves the strands of The Stone Diaries together in this, her richest and most poignant novel to date.]]> 361 Carol Shields 014023313X Madeline 3 the-list
A fat-free vanilla frozen yogurt version of The House of the Spirits's dark chocolate Haagen Daz ice cream. That's pretty much all I can say about this book.

Okay, I understand that this won the Pulitzer prize, and is therefore amazing. I recognize and appreciate that the writing is wonderfully done, and I had no trouble finishing this story and was glad I read it. But for some reason, it just never grabbed me in any meaningful way. It's a story about an ordinary woman, living an ordinary life, and dying an ordinary death. Nothing earth-shattering. ]]> 3.89 1993 The Stone Diaries
author: Carol Shields
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.89
book published: 1993
rating: 3
read at:
date added: 2013/12/30
shelves: the-list
review:
"My mother's name was Mercy Stone Goodwill. She was only thirty years old when she took sick, a boiling hot day, standing there in her back kitchen, making a Malvern pudding for her husband's supper. A cookery book lay open on the table: 'Take some slices of stale bread,' the recipe said, 'and one pint of currants; half a pint of raspberries; four ounces of sugar; some sweet cream if available.' Of course she's didvided the recipe in half, there being just the two of them, and what with the scarcity of currants, and Cuyler (my father) being a dainty eater. A pick-and-nibble fellow, she calls him, able to take his food or leave it."

A fat-free vanilla frozen yogurt version of The House of the Spirits's dark chocolate Haagen Daz ice cream. That's pretty much all I can say about this book.

Okay, I understand that this won the Pulitzer prize, and is therefore amazing. I recognize and appreciate that the writing is wonderfully done, and I had no trouble finishing this story and was glad I read it. But for some reason, it just never grabbed me in any meaningful way. It's a story about an ordinary woman, living an ordinary life, and dying an ordinary death. Nothing earth-shattering.
]]> The Glass Key 30007 Dashiell Hammett's tour de force of crime fiction combines a bulletproof plot, authentically corrupt characters, and writing of telegraphic crispness.]]> 214 Dashiell Hammett 0752851330 Madeline 1 detective-fiction, the-list The Maltese Falcon and The Thin Man are on there, because they're great, but as far as I'm concerned there was no reason to include this one as well.

Plainly put, it was dull and confusing. It's more political thriller than detective novel, so if that's your thing you might like this, but any sort of political intrigue drama generally bores me to death unless it's actually a historical political intrigue. There were too many characters introduced too quickly who would then disappear for large sections of the story, making it very difficult to remember who everyone was and why they didn't like each other. The leading ladies are boring as hell (no smartass Nora Charles or evil Brigid O'Shaunessy here; just a hysterical gang moll, a dull gangster's daughter, and a duller politician's daughter, and none of them are even mildly scheming or sassy) and the detective's romantic interest in one of them doesn't make a damn lick of sense. The amateur detective in question is Ned Beaumont, and it's clear that Hammett was going for one of his hard-boiled-yet-charming detective scoundrels, a la Sam Spade or Nick Charles, but the problem is that the charming bad boy is a very sensitive and specific formula, and something was improperly measured when Hammett made Beaumont. Rather than being hard-boiled, he's just an asshole, and all his quips are more smug than funny. I never understood his thought process or motivation, much less why everyone kept talking about what a swell guy he was when clearly he was just a crafty douchebag.

The murder victim that the case centers around never gets to make an appearance in the story - we meet him when his body is discovered - and so the death Beaumont is investigating never really seems that important, and the twists and turns that the story took left me mostly perplexed because I never knew what was going on in the first place anyway. It got to the point where I seriously considered just abandoning the book and reading something else, which is not good - I didn't even care who had murdered the guy, because I didn't care about him or any of the people who might have killed him, and I certainly didn't like Beaumont enough to want him to crack the case and get the dame and all that.

In a word: boring. Once again, The List has seriously dropped the ball.]]> 3.96 1931 The Glass Key
author: Dashiell Hammett
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.96
book published: 1931
rating: 1
read at: 2012/02/01
date added: 2013/12/29
shelves: detective-fiction, the-list
review:
This is on The List? Really? I mean, I understand why The Maltese Falcon and The Thin Man are on there, because they're great, but as far as I'm concerned there was no reason to include this one as well.

Plainly put, it was dull and confusing. It's more political thriller than detective novel, so if that's your thing you might like this, but any sort of political intrigue drama generally bores me to death unless it's actually a historical political intrigue. There were too many characters introduced too quickly who would then disappear for large sections of the story, making it very difficult to remember who everyone was and why they didn't like each other. The leading ladies are boring as hell (no smartass Nora Charles or evil Brigid O'Shaunessy here; just a hysterical gang moll, a dull gangster's daughter, and a duller politician's daughter, and none of them are even mildly scheming or sassy) and the detective's romantic interest in one of them doesn't make a damn lick of sense. The amateur detective in question is Ned Beaumont, and it's clear that Hammett was going for one of his hard-boiled-yet-charming detective scoundrels, a la Sam Spade or Nick Charles, but the problem is that the charming bad boy is a very sensitive and specific formula, and something was improperly measured when Hammett made Beaumont. Rather than being hard-boiled, he's just an asshole, and all his quips are more smug than funny. I never understood his thought process or motivation, much less why everyone kept talking about what a swell guy he was when clearly he was just a crafty douchebag.

The murder victim that the case centers around never gets to make an appearance in the story - we meet him when his body is discovered - and so the death Beaumont is investigating never really seems that important, and the twists and turns that the story took left me mostly perplexed because I never knew what was going on in the first place anyway. It got to the point where I seriously considered just abandoning the book and reading something else, which is not good - I didn't even care who had murdered the guy, because I didn't care about him or any of the people who might have killed him, and I certainly didn't like Beaumont enough to want him to crack the case and get the dame and all that.

In a word: boring. Once again, The List has seriously dropped the ball.
]]> Lolita 7604 Librarian's note: Alternate cover edition of ISBN 9780141182537.

Humbert Humbert - scholar, aesthete and romantic - has fallen completely and utterly in love with Dolores Haze, his landlady's gum-snapping, silky skinned twelve-year-old daughter. Reluctantly agreeing to marry Mrs Haze just to be close to Lolita, Humbert suffers greatly in the pursuit of romance; but when Lo herself starts looking for attention elsewhere, he will carry her off on a desperate cross-country misadventure, all in the name of Love. Hilarious, flamboyant, heart-breaking and full of ingenious word play, Lolita is an immaculate, unforgettable masterpiece of obsession, delusion and lust.]]> 368 Vladimir Nabokov 0679723161 Madeline 4 the-list Lolita was especially surreal in that respect. But I really, really liked the story, despite how much it creeped me out. I'm definitely not going to read it over and over, but I would recommend it to anyone.]]> 3.87 1955 Lolita
author: Vladimir Nabokov
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.87
book published: 1955
rating: 4
read at:
date added: 2013/12/28
shelves: the-list
review:
I feel weird saying that I liked a book about child molestation, but it's true. This a good book. (Good, of course = well-written and interesting) Disturbing, obviously, but still. It's always weird reading a book where the protagonist is pure evil, and Lolita was especially surreal in that respect. But I really, really liked the story, despite how much it creeped me out. I'm definitely not going to read it over and over, but I would recommend it to anyone.
]]> <![CDATA[The Hobbit: Or There And Back Again]]> 289897
Bilbo Baggins is a hobbit who enjoys a comfortable, unambitious life, rarely travelling further than the pantry of his hobbit-hole in Bag End. But his contentment is disturbed when the wizard, Gandalf, and a company of thirteen dwarves arrive on his doorstep one day to whisk him away on an unexpected journey there and back again . They have a plot to raid the treasure hoard of Smaug the Magnificent, a large and very dangerous dragon

The prelude to The Lord of the Rings, The Hobbit has sold many millions of copies since its publication in 1937, establishing itself as one of the most beloved and influential books of the twentieth century."]]> J.R.R. Tolkien 0201111586 Madeline 4 the-list, fantasy The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit isn't a sprawling epic; it's a good story that was written to make you feel like you're sitting by a fireplace, listening to Grandpa Tolkien tell one of his weird hobbit stories. Yes, you've heard it a million times already, and Grandpa does tend to blather on a little longer than he needs to in certain parts, but overall, you enjoy the experiece. But only once a year at Thanksgiving.
(before that metaphor gets away from me completely, let's move on)
I'm now looking forward to the movie version of this, as it'll be the first of Tolkien's novels that I've read the book version of before seeing the movie. Hopefully the director continues the rule started in the first three movies: elves must have dignity.
Honestly, it seemed like every second an elf popped up in The Hobbit, he or she would be prancing around, making up songs and "merrymaking" and generally acting a damn fool. So I beg the good people at New Line Cinema to remember just one simple rule: elves must not behave like Oompa Loompas. Please.
]]> 4.30 1937 The Hobbit: Or There And Back Again
author: J.R.R. Tolkien
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.30
book published: 1937
rating: 4
read at:
date added: 2013/12/26
shelves: the-list, fantasy
review:
A nice story. I especially liked the tone that this was written in, which felt less formal, and more conversational than The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit isn't a sprawling epic; it's a good story that was written to make you feel like you're sitting by a fireplace, listening to Grandpa Tolkien tell one of his weird hobbit stories. Yes, you've heard it a million times already, and Grandpa does tend to blather on a little longer than he needs to in certain parts, but overall, you enjoy the experiece. But only once a year at Thanksgiving.
(before that metaphor gets away from me completely, let's move on)
I'm now looking forward to the movie version of this, as it'll be the first of Tolkien's novels that I've read the book version of before seeing the movie. Hopefully the director continues the rule started in the first three movies: elves must have dignity.
Honestly, it seemed like every second an elf popped up in The Hobbit, he or she would be prancing around, making up songs and "merrymaking" and generally acting a damn fool. So I beg the good people at New Line Cinema to remember just one simple rule: elves must not behave like Oompa Loompas. Please.

]]> Le petit prince 863928
Cette évocation onirique, à laquelle participent les aquarelles de l'auteur, a tout d'un parcours initiatique, où l'enfant apprendra les richesses essentielles des rapports humains et le secret qui les régit : "On ne voit bien qu'avec le coeur, l'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux."

Œuvre essentielle de la littérature, ce livre de Saint-Exupéry est un ouvrage que l'on aura à coeur de raconter à son enfant, page après page, histoire aussi de redécouvrir l'enfant que l'on était autrefois, avant de devenir une grande personne.]]> 117 Antoine de Saint-Exupéry 2070581055 Madeline 2
I get that there's a lot of symbolic stuff in this book, and I don't do well with symbolism. I read the book because I had to, and by the end of it my only thoughts about it were, "What the hell was that about?"

Read for: 11th grade French



]]> 4.38 1943 Le petit prince
author: Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.38
book published: 1943
rating: 2
read at: 2005/01/01
date added: 2013/12/24
shelves: the-list, fantasy, assigned-reading, kids-and-young-adult, ugh
review:
Everyone seems to really love this book, but I had to read it for a French class, and we were forced to discuss it (in French), and by the end of the unit we were all really annoyed with it. This resulted in nearly the entire class holding a bonfire at the end of the semester where we gleefully tossed all of our Petit Prince tests and worksheets into the flames, all the while shouting triumphantly, "Try getting back to your home planet NOW!" (This is why students should always be encouraged to read books of their own free will, rather than having Great Literature forced on them. See what happens?)

I get that there's a lot of symbolic stuff in this book, and I don't do well with symbolism. I read the book because I had to, and by the end of it my only thoughts about it were, "What the hell was that about?"

Read for: 11th grade French




]]> Vanity Fair 5797 867 William Makepeace Thackeray 0141439831 Madeline 2 the-list, ugh Here, presented in simple list form, are the reasons I disliked this book:
-William Makepeace Thackeray is a condescending ass. Maybe this was all part of the satire, but a danger of writing a satirical book is that people might accidentally take it seriously. I am one of those idiots, and because of this I just rolled my eyes at the book while reading quotes like this: "What do men know about women's martyrdoms? We should go mad had we to endure the hundreth part of those daily pains which are meekly born by many women. Ceaseless slavery meeting with no reward; constant gentleness and kindness met by cruelty as constant; love, labour, patience, watchfullness, without even so much as the acknowledgement of a good word; all this, how many of them have to bear in quiet, and appear abroad with cheerful faces as if they felt nothing. Tender slaves that they are, they must needs be hypocrites and weak."
Hear that? It's the sound of me bringing my Angry Feminist Hat out of storage.
Also, if I had a nickel for every time Thackeray refers to either Becky or Amelia as "the little woman" I would have at least three dollars. I'm not even exagerrating.
-The whole book is at least 200 pages too long, bogged down with pointless anecdotes and background information that has no effect on the plot. Several times I found myself reading a long description of the random Army captain's wife's sister's marriage arrangements, and would mutter at the pages, "Why does this matter?" Seriously, Thackeray needs a good editor more than anything else.
-Almost all the characters irritated me beyond measure. Rawdon was an idiot, George was an asshole, Dobbin had "Hello, I'm a Tool" written on his forehead, and Amelia made Jane Eyre look like Gloria Steinem. Becky was the only exception to this - she was evil, conniving, smart, charming, and totally awesome. But she was only present for about a third of the book. Which leads me to my next point...
-Why is Becky only present for one third of the story? I had to sit through pages and pages of pointless chatter about minor characters and The Trials of Amelia the Adorable Martyr, and all I wanted to know was what Becky was up to. Towards the end of the book, once I had stopped even remotely caring about the latest evidence for Amelia's sainthood, Becky finally makes a reappearance. This is several years after her husband discovered that she had been hoarding money and may have been cheating on him, and left her to go be a mayor in Wherever-The-Hell Island. What, the readers wonder, could Becky have gotten up to in that time? Whatever it is, it's probably a lot more interesting than anything Amelia the Spineless Wonder has been doing.
Here's what Thackeray has to say about Becky while she wasn't in the story: "...when Becky is out of the way, be sure that she is not particularly well-employed, and that the less that is said about her doings is in fact the better."
Yeah. God forbid you should write about your most interesting character. Let's find out how Amelia is doing instead. I'm sure it's something sweet and selfless.
The worst part is that right after Thackeray tells us that he's not going to write about what Becky did after her husband left her, he spends the next eighteen pages telling us what Becky did after her husband left her. What. The hell. Remember what I said about this book needing an editor? Exactly. ]]> 3.80 1847 Vanity Fair
author: William Makepeace Thackeray
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.80
book published: 1847
rating: 2
read at:
date added: 2013/12/24
shelves: the-list, ugh
review:
According to the description on the back of my copy, this book is "deliciously satirical." If that means the book is supposed to be taken as a joke, then I definitely read it the wrong way. Maybe I should try rereading it while repeating under my breath, "It's Oscar Wilde, it's Oscar Wilde, it's Oscar Wilde" until I see that it's funny, but frankly I'd rather not.
Here, presented in simple list form, are the reasons I disliked this book:
-William Makepeace Thackeray is a condescending ass. Maybe this was all part of the satire, but a danger of writing a satirical book is that people might accidentally take it seriously. I am one of those idiots, and because of this I just rolled my eyes at the book while reading quotes like this: "What do men know about women's martyrdoms? We should go mad had we to endure the hundreth part of those daily pains which are meekly born by many women. Ceaseless slavery meeting with no reward; constant gentleness and kindness met by cruelty as constant; love, labour, patience, watchfullness, without even so much as the acknowledgement of a good word; all this, how many of them have to bear in quiet, and appear abroad with cheerful faces as if they felt nothing. Tender slaves that they are, they must needs be hypocrites and weak."
Hear that? It's the sound of me bringing my Angry Feminist Hat out of storage.
Also, if I had a nickel for every time Thackeray refers to either Becky or Amelia as "the little woman" I would have at least three dollars. I'm not even exagerrating.
-The whole book is at least 200 pages too long, bogged down with pointless anecdotes and background information that has no effect on the plot. Several times I found myself reading a long description of the random Army captain's wife's sister's marriage arrangements, and would mutter at the pages, "Why does this matter?" Seriously, Thackeray needs a good editor more than anything else.
-Almost all the characters irritated me beyond measure. Rawdon was an idiot, George was an asshole, Dobbin had "Hello, I'm a Tool" written on his forehead, and Amelia made Jane Eyre look like Gloria Steinem. Becky was the only exception to this - she was evil, conniving, smart, charming, and totally awesome. But she was only present for about a third of the book. Which leads me to my next point...
-Why is Becky only present for one third of the story? I had to sit through pages and pages of pointless chatter about minor characters and The Trials of Amelia the Adorable Martyr, and all I wanted to know was what Becky was up to. Towards the end of the book, once I had stopped even remotely caring about the latest evidence for Amelia's sainthood, Becky finally makes a reappearance. This is several years after her husband discovered that she had been hoarding money and may have been cheating on him, and left her to go be a mayor in Wherever-The-Hell Island. What, the readers wonder, could Becky have gotten up to in that time? Whatever it is, it's probably a lot more interesting than anything Amelia the Spineless Wonder has been doing.
Here's what Thackeray has to say about Becky while she wasn't in the story: "...when Becky is out of the way, be sure that she is not particularly well-employed, and that the less that is said about her doings is in fact the better."
Yeah. God forbid you should write about your most interesting character. Let's find out how Amelia is doing instead. I'm sure it's something sweet and selfless.
The worst part is that right after Thackeray tells us that he's not going to write about what Becky did after her husband left her, he spends the next eighteen pages telling us what Becky did after her husband left her. What. The hell. Remember what I said about this book needing an editor? Exactly.
]]> The Thin Man 80616 The Thin Man is a murder mystery that doubles as a sophisticated comedy of manners.]]> 201 Dashiell Hammett 0679722637 Madeline 3
But lucky for me, the book has a lot more going for it than just the banter. It's a fun, classic 30's mystery full of crazy dames and shooting and goons and coppers, and the characters drink so much it made my liver hurt just reading about it. Like The Maltese Falcon, it got to a point where I had to just accept that I had no idea what any of the characters were talking about and try to go with the flow until someone explained everything at the end. They mystery itself (it includes a string of murders and a suspiciously-absent man) was engrossing, although I guessed the big twist a few pages before it happened.

Having looked up the movie version of The Thin Man on IMDB, I've added it to my Netflix queue and intend to make a comparison as soon as possible - if the IMDB quotes are any indication, the movie version looks much funnier than the book. Stand by for further information as soon as I watch it.

PS: I just noticed one of the options at the bottom of the review box, next to the spoiler button - "Does this book follow a few characters or many?" Who the fuck cares, Ĺ·±¦ÓéŔÖ? If I think it's that important, I'll mention it in the actual review. Jesus.

UPDATE, AFTER WATCHING THE FILM VERSION: I'm now putting this on my "The Movie Is Better" shelf, because as I predicted, the movie is much funnier. William Powell and Myrna Loy are darling as Nick and Nora, Mimi is appropriately crazy (although in the movie there's never any doubt about whether she killed Julia, because we actually see her find the body), Gilbert is adorable, and Nora has an absolutely fabulous collection of outfits. Watch the movie, and read the book only if you're really curious about the little changes they made in the screenplay. ]]> 3.92 1934 The Thin Man
author: Dashiell Hammett
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.92
book published: 1934
rating: 3
read at: 2011/01/01
date added: 2013/12/23
shelves: detective-fiction, the-list, the-movie-is-better
review:
Honestly? I think the awesomeness of Nick and Nora Charles got built up a little too much for me before I read this, because I was expecting 200 pages of nonstop witty banter between the two, and was mildly disappointed. Sure, Nick is funny in a dry sarcastic way, and Nora is the sassy drunken aunt you never knew you always wanted, but their banter and witticisms only caused the occasional chuckle.

But lucky for me, the book has a lot more going for it than just the banter. It's a fun, classic 30's mystery full of crazy dames and shooting and goons and coppers, and the characters drink so much it made my liver hurt just reading about it. Like The Maltese Falcon, it got to a point where I had to just accept that I had no idea what any of the characters were talking about and try to go with the flow until someone explained everything at the end. They mystery itself (it includes a string of murders and a suspiciously-absent man) was engrossing, although I guessed the big twist a few pages before it happened.

Having looked up the movie version of The Thin Man on IMDB, I've added it to my Netflix queue and intend to make a comparison as soon as possible - if the IMDB quotes are any indication, the movie version looks much funnier than the book. Stand by for further information as soon as I watch it.

PS: I just noticed one of the options at the bottom of the review box, next to the spoiler button - "Does this book follow a few characters or many?" Who the fuck cares, Ĺ·±¦ÓéŔÖ? If I think it's that important, I'll mention it in the actual review. Jesus.

UPDATE, AFTER WATCHING THE FILM VERSION: I'm now putting this on my "The Movie Is Better" shelf, because as I predicted, the movie is much funnier. William Powell and Myrna Loy are darling as Nick and Nora, Mimi is appropriately crazy (although in the movie there's never any doubt about whether she killed Julia, because we actually see her find the body), Gilbert is adorable, and Nora has an absolutely fabulous collection of outfits. Watch the movie, and read the book only if you're really curious about the little changes they made in the screenplay.
]]> A Passage to India 45195 A Passage to India compellingly depicts the fate of individuals caught between the great political and cultural conflicts of the modern world.

In his introduction, Pankaj Mishra outlines Forster's complex engagement with Indian society and culture. This edition reproduces the Abinger text and notes, and also includes four of Forster's essays on India, a chronology and further reading.]]> 376 E.M. Forster 014144116X Madeline 4 the-list
Taking place in the waning years of British rule in India (although Forster, writing the book in 1924, could not have know that India would become independent in less than twenty-five years), A Passage to India is, at the surface, the story of a misunderstanding and its long-ranging consequences. But that's only the barest plot description. The book is an exploration of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed, human imperfections and mistakes, and whether friendship can ever exist between the colonizer and the colonized. It's also a thoughtful and powerful critique of the British presence in India, which Forster shows us by shrinking the conflict to a handful of people.

Our main characters are Dr. Aziz, a native Muslim; Mr. Fielding, a British teacher who has not yet become one of the "Anglo-Indians"; and Mrs. Moore and Miss Quested, fresh off the boat from England. Miss Quested is in India to marry Mrs. Moore's son, and both women express an interest in seeing "the real India." Mrs. Moore befriends Dr. Aziz when she meets him in a mosque, and this leads to a friendship between her, Aziz, Miss Quested, and Fielding. After the women express an interest in seeing the Marabar caves, Dr. Aziz offers to be their guide. (The trip doesn't occur until halfway through the book, but the caves are a constant presence in the story, always looming somewhat menacingly in the background) While Aziz is at the caves with the women, an incident occurs, and due to a misunderstanding, Aziz finds himself accused by Miss Quested. An unfortunate series of events makes him seem guiltier than he is, and he is arrested. Miss Quested's accusation, and the sides the characters take in the ensuing trial, bring long-standing resentments and issues bubbling to the surface, and no one gets out unscathed.

This was the second Forster book I've read, and I enjoyed it more than A Room With A View. The latter didn't really grab me until about a hundred pages in, but this had me enthralled from the beginning. I loved Forster's beautiful descriptions of India, his look into people's minds, and the fact that a British author could write such a blistering portrayal of colonization. Better yet, he doesn't simply villify the English and idealize the Indians - everyone is flawed here, but no one is outwardly evil. Characters are all well-intentioned, but not always sympathetic. And once Aziz is arrested, Forster's description of the panic that grips the British is evocative and sadly familiar to 21st-century readers:

"They had started speaking of 'women and children' - that phrase that exempts the male from sanity when it has been repeated a few times. Each felt that all he loved best in the world was at stake, demanded revenge, and was filled with a not-unpleasing glow, in which the chilly and half-known features of Miss Quested vanished, and were replaced by all that is sweetest and warmest in the private life."]]> 3.69 1924 A Passage to India
author: E.M. Forster
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.69
book published: 1924
rating: 4
read at: 2013/09/01
date added: 2013/12/19
shelves: the-list
review:
"The sky settles everything - not only climates and seasons but when the earth shall be beautiful. By herself she can do little - only feeble outbursts of flowers. But when the sky chooses, glory can rain into the Chandrapore bazaars or a benediction pass from horizon to horizon. The sky can do this because it is so strong and so enormous. Strength comes from the sun, infused in it daily; size from the prostrate earth. No mountains infringe on the curve. League after league the earth lies flat, heaves a little, is flat again. Only in the south, where a group of fists and fingers are thrust up through the soil, is the endless expanse interrupted. These fists and fingers are the Marabar Hills, containing the extraordinary caves."

Taking place in the waning years of British rule in India (although Forster, writing the book in 1924, could not have know that India would become independent in less than twenty-five years), A Passage to India is, at the surface, the story of a misunderstanding and its long-ranging consequences. But that's only the barest plot description. The book is an exploration of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed, human imperfections and mistakes, and whether friendship can ever exist between the colonizer and the colonized. It's also a thoughtful and powerful critique of the British presence in India, which Forster shows us by shrinking the conflict to a handful of people.

Our main characters are Dr. Aziz, a native Muslim; Mr. Fielding, a British teacher who has not yet become one of the "Anglo-Indians"; and Mrs. Moore and Miss Quested, fresh off the boat from England. Miss Quested is in India to marry Mrs. Moore's son, and both women express an interest in seeing "the real India." Mrs. Moore befriends Dr. Aziz when she meets him in a mosque, and this leads to a friendship between her, Aziz, Miss Quested, and Fielding. After the women express an interest in seeing the Marabar caves, Dr. Aziz offers to be their guide. (The trip doesn't occur until halfway through the book, but the caves are a constant presence in the story, always looming somewhat menacingly in the background) While Aziz is at the caves with the women, an incident occurs, and due to a misunderstanding, Aziz finds himself accused by Miss Quested. An unfortunate series of events makes him seem guiltier than he is, and he is arrested. Miss Quested's accusation, and the sides the characters take in the ensuing trial, bring long-standing resentments and issues bubbling to the surface, and no one gets out unscathed.

This was the second Forster book I've read, and I enjoyed it more than A Room With A View. The latter didn't really grab me until about a hundred pages in, but this had me enthralled from the beginning. I loved Forster's beautiful descriptions of India, his look into people's minds, and the fact that a British author could write such a blistering portrayal of colonization. Better yet, he doesn't simply villify the English and idealize the Indians - everyone is flawed here, but no one is outwardly evil. Characters are all well-intentioned, but not always sympathetic. And once Aziz is arrested, Forster's description of the panic that grips the British is evocative and sadly familiar to 21st-century readers:

"They had started speaking of 'women and children' - that phrase that exempts the male from sanity when it has been repeated a few times. Each felt that all he loved best in the world was at stake, demanded revenge, and was filled with a not-unpleasing glow, in which the chilly and half-known features of Miss Quested vanished, and were replaced by all that is sweetest and warmest in the private life."
]]> Life of Pi 4214 460 Yann Martel 0770430074 Madeline 3 On the other hand, nearly everything that happens before the boat crash that leads to Pi's lifeboat problem is incredibly, mind-numbingly boring.
I liked learning about zoology and the inner workings and secrets of zoos that Pi's father reveals, and the information was important to later plot developements.
But then Pi spends at least four long chapters describing how he decided as a teenager that he was going to be Christian, Muslim, and Hindu all at the same time. (He may have dabbled in Judaism as well, but I honestly can't remember if he did or not because by that point in the book I was ready to throw the thing out the window) I realize that Pi's faith is an important factor during his time in the lifeboat, but it just takes so damn long for him to lecture the readers on his multi-road faith journey. I remember reading it and wondering when he was going to be in the damn shipwreck already.
And the ending...at the risk of giving anything away, I'll just say that it's one of those endings that makes you go, "Wait...what?" After I finished the book, I felt like Yann Martel was ordering me to reread the book and observe all his oh-so-brilliant symbolism etc etc. But then I remembered the first half of the book and I was like, "Screw you, Yann Martel. I'm going to read something else now."

So essentially, I guess I liked most of the book, but I will not be rereading it anytime soon.]]> 3.94 2001 Life of Pi
author: Yann Martel
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.94
book published: 2001
rating: 3
read at:
date added: 2013/12/18
shelves: the-list, kids-and-young-adult
review:
I have mixed feelings about this book. On the one hand, the second half of this story, when Pi is trapped in a lifeboat with an orangutan, a hyena, a zebra, and a tiger in the middle of the ocean and has to survive after the tiger kills all the other animals, is fascinating. (and no, that does not count as a spoiler, because the back of the book tells you the exact same thing.)
On the other hand, nearly everything that happens before the boat crash that leads to Pi's lifeboat problem is incredibly, mind-numbingly boring.
I liked learning about zoology and the inner workings and secrets of zoos that Pi's father reveals, and the information was important to later plot developements.
But then Pi spends at least four long chapters describing how he decided as a teenager that he was going to be Christian, Muslim, and Hindu all at the same time. (He may have dabbled in Judaism as well, but I honestly can't remember if he did or not because by that point in the book I was ready to throw the thing out the window) I realize that Pi's faith is an important factor during his time in the lifeboat, but it just takes so damn long for him to lecture the readers on his multi-road faith journey. I remember reading it and wondering when he was going to be in the damn shipwreck already.
And the ending...at the risk of giving anything away, I'll just say that it's one of those endings that makes you go, "Wait...what?" After I finished the book, I felt like Yann Martel was ordering me to reread the book and observe all his oh-so-brilliant symbolism etc etc. But then I remembered the first half of the book and I was like, "Screw you, Yann Martel. I'm going to read something else now."

So essentially, I guess I liked most of the book, but I will not be rereading it anytime soon.
]]> Atonement 6867
On a hot summer day in 1935, thirteen-year-old Briony Tallis witnesses the flirtation between her older sister, Cecilia, and Robbie Turner, the son of a servant. But Briony's incomplete grasp of adult motives—together with her precocious literary gifts—brings about a crime that will change all their lives.

As it follows that crime's repercussions through the chaos and carnage of World War II and into the close of the twentieth century, Atonement engages the reader on every conceivable level, with an ease and authority that mark it as a genuine masterpiece.]]> 351 Ian McEwan 038572179X Madeline 5 the-list amazingness (is that a word? it is now) of Ian McEwan's story.

I'm almost tempted to give the movie preference, because I prefer the screenwriters' ending to McEwan's. That's the only real distinction I make between Atonement, the movie and Atonement, the novel: the end of the movie makes me cry, and the end of the novel does not. ]]> 3.94 2001 Atonement
author: Ian McEwan
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.94
book published: 2001
rating: 5
read at:
date added: 2013/12/17
shelves: the-list
review:
One of the few examples I can think of where the movie version is just as good as the book - not better, not worse. Whether I watched Atonement, read it, or did both (highly recommended), I was blown away by the sheer amazingness (is that a word? it is now) of Ian McEwan's story.

I'm almost tempted to give the movie preference, because I prefer the screenwriters' ending to McEwan's. That's the only real distinction I make between Atonement, the movie and Atonement, the novel: the end of the movie makes me cry, and the end of the novel does not.
]]> A Tale of Two Cities 1953 A Tale of Two Cities is Charles Dickens’s great historical novel, set against the violent upheaval of the French Revolution. The most famous and perhaps the most popular of his works, it compresses an event of immense complexity to the scale of a family history, with a cast of characters that includes a bloodthirsty ogress and an antihero as believably flawed as any in modern fiction. Though the least typical of the author’s novels, A Tale of Two Cities still underscores many of his enduring themes—imprisonment, injustice, social anarchy, resurrection, and the renunciation that fosters renewal.]]> 489 Charles Dickens 0141439602 Madeline 4 the-list, historic-fiction Dickens loves sad endings, and this was one of his best. I actually cried at the end, it was that good.]]> 3.86 1859 A Tale of Two Cities
author: Charles Dickens
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.86
book published: 1859
rating: 4
read at:
date added: 2013/12/15
shelves: the-list, historic-fiction
review:
Much better than I expected it to be. The beginning is a little hard to follow at first, and sometimes I had to re-read a section of dialogue to figure out which character was saying what, but besides those minor annoyances, I loved it. Every single character in this book has a purpose for being in the story, every character has a past that will influence the plot in some way. One of my favorite characters was Madame Defarge, one of the revolutionary leaders. Throughout the story, she's constantly knitting, and we learn that she has invented a code based on the pattern of her knitting that only she can read. She "records" the faces and names of everyone she finds suspicious into the pattern of her knitting. How cool is that?
Dickens loves sad endings, and this was one of his best. I actually cried at the end, it was that good.
]]> Memoirs of Hadrian 12172 347 Marguerite Yourcenar 0374529264 Madeline 5 Memoirs of Hadrian. Then read this excerpt and try to explain why you aren't hauling ass to the bookstore to buy a copy and read it immediately:

"From the top of a terrace on the night following these celebrations I watched Rome ablaze. Those festive bonfires were surely as brilliant as the disastrous conflagration lighted by Nero; they were almost as terrifying, too. Rome the crucible, but also the furnace, the boiling metal, the hammer, and the anvil as well, visible proof of the changes and repetition of history, one place in the world where man will have most passionately lived. The great fire of Troy from which a fugitive had escaped, taking with him his aged father, his young son, and his household goods, had passed down to us that night in this flaming festival. I thought also, with something like awe, of conflagrations to come. These millions of lives past, present, and future, these structures newly arisen from ancient edifices and followed themselves by structures yet to be born, seemed to me to succeed each other in time like waves; by chance it was at my feet that night that this great surf swept to shore. ...The solid walls of the Palatine Palace, which I occupied so little, but which I had just rebuilt, seemed to sway like a ship at sea; the curtains drawn back to admit the night air were like those of a high cabin aft, and the cries of the crowd were the sound of wind in the sails. The massive reef in the distance, perceptible in the dark, that gigantic base of my tomb so newly begun on the banks of the Tiber, suggested to me no regret at the moment, no terror nor vain meditation upon the brevity of life."]]> 4.27 1951 Memoirs of Hadrian
author: Marguerite Yourcenar
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.27
book published: 1951
rating: 5
read at: 2013/06/01
date added: 2013/07/25
shelves: the-list, all-time-favorites, historic-fiction
review:
I was all set to write a review of this book, and then I read brilliant essay (the word "review" seems too insufficient to describe what she does) and realized that I wouldn't be able to express my thoughts with anything approaching that kind of eloquence and thoughtfulness. So instead, this is going to be a simple two-part review: first, go read Kelly's thoughts on Memoirs of Hadrian. Then read this excerpt and try to explain why you aren't hauling ass to the bookstore to buy a copy and read it immediately:

"From the top of a terrace on the night following these celebrations I watched Rome ablaze. Those festive bonfires were surely as brilliant as the disastrous conflagration lighted by Nero; they were almost as terrifying, too. Rome the crucible, but also the furnace, the boiling metal, the hammer, and the anvil as well, visible proof of the changes and repetition of history, one place in the world where man will have most passionately lived. The great fire of Troy from which a fugitive had escaped, taking with him his aged father, his young son, and his household goods, had passed down to us that night in this flaming festival. I thought also, with something like awe, of conflagrations to come. These millions of lives past, present, and future, these structures newly arisen from ancient edifices and followed themselves by structures yet to be born, seemed to me to succeed each other in time like waves; by chance it was at my feet that night that this great surf swept to shore. ...The solid walls of the Palatine Palace, which I occupied so little, but which I had just rebuilt, seemed to sway like a ship at sea; the curtains drawn back to admit the night air were like those of a high cabin aft, and the cries of the crowd were the sound of wind in the sails. The massive reef in the distance, perceptible in the dark, that gigantic base of my tomb so newly begun on the banks of the Tiber, suggested to me no regret at the moment, no terror nor vain meditation upon the brevity of life."
]]> For Whom the Bell Tolls 46170 For Whom the Bell Tolls. The story of Robert Jordan, a young American in the International Brigades attached to an antifascist guerilla unit in the mountains of Spain, it tells of loyalty and courage, love and defeat, and the tragic death of an ideal. In his portrayal of Jordan's love for the beautiful Maria and his superb account of El Sordo's last stand, in his brilliant travesty of La Pasionaria and his unwillingness to believe in blind faith, Hemingway surpasses his achievement in The Sun Also Rises and A Farewell to Arms to create a work at once rare and beautiful, strong and brutal, compassionate, moving and wise. "If the function of a writer is to reveal reality," Maxwell Perkins wrote to Hemingway after reading the manuscript, "no one ever so completely performed it." Greater in power, broader in scope, and more intensely emotional than any of the author's previous works, it stands as one of the best war novels of all time.]]> 471 Ernest Hemingway Madeline 4 the-list
In The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien writes that, "If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie." I kept coming back to that quote as I read this book, because it proves that Robbins was absolutely right. For Whom the Bell Tolls is not an uplifting story, and it's not moral. And when you're writing about a ragtag bunch of rebels fighting a fascist army, that's not easy to do. There are no good guys in this story, and no bad guys - not even the fascists.

"Good" and "Bad" in this story isn't divided by such clear lines. Instead, the biggest enemy that the protagonist (I won't use the word "hero") Robert Jordan faces is within the rebel group itself - a lot of strong personalities are drawn together by this war, and throwing them all together and making them live in a cave maybe wasn't the best way to go about things. The result is a fascinating portrait of a small group of people under enormous pressure, all trying to do the right thing even as they question what the right thing really is. Even when you're fighting fascists, nothing is black and white.

Another observation: having previously believed that Hemingway was incapable of writing compelling female characters, I am now forced to revise that opinion. There are only two women in this book, but they are both fully realized and compelling. Other reviewers found Maria one-dimensional, but I thought she was fascinating because of what was hinted at, but not revealed, about her. Her staggering understatement to describe her time as a prisoner of war - "Things were done to me" - is wonderful. She was tragic and sweet, and on a related note, Hemingway writes some surprisingly good sex scenes, so there's that.

And Pilar. Holy crap. Probably one of the most well-done characters I've ever read, she's alternately the mother figure, the best friend, the confidante, and the villain. Pilar is my new spirit animal.

A war story without heroes or villains, full of hollow victories and rage against the bureaucracy of war and what people under pressure can be forced to do, filled with some very good meditations on killing and war and love, and the importance of acting beyond personal gain. Well done, Mr. Hemingway.

(I should also add that Campbell Scott, who read the audiobook, does a fantastic job - he makes the characters' voices different enough for you to tell them apart without difficulty, and his Robert Jordan voice is exactly how I imagine Hemingway sounded in real life. If you're considering reading this, I'd recommend tracking down the audio version)]]> 3.98 1940 For Whom the Bell Tolls
author: Ernest Hemingway
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.98
book published: 1940
rating: 4
read at: 2011/07/01
date added: 2013/04/09
shelves: the-list
review:
Just when I'd decided that Hemingway only ever wrote books about people getting drunk in cafes and thinking about how miserable they are, he surprises me and comes out with something like this. Naturally, the characters still get drunk and think about how miserable they are, but they do it while being guerrilla fighters in the Spanish Civil War, which makes it awesome.

In The Things They Carried, Tim O'Brien writes that, "If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie." I kept coming back to that quote as I read this book, because it proves that Robbins was absolutely right. For Whom the Bell Tolls is not an uplifting story, and it's not moral. And when you're writing about a ragtag bunch of rebels fighting a fascist army, that's not easy to do. There are no good guys in this story, and no bad guys - not even the fascists.

"Good" and "Bad" in this story isn't divided by such clear lines. Instead, the biggest enemy that the protagonist (I won't use the word "hero") Robert Jordan faces is within the rebel group itself - a lot of strong personalities are drawn together by this war, and throwing them all together and making them live in a cave maybe wasn't the best way to go about things. The result is a fascinating portrait of a small group of people under enormous pressure, all trying to do the right thing even as they question what the right thing really is. Even when you're fighting fascists, nothing is black and white.

Another observation: having previously believed that Hemingway was incapable of writing compelling female characters, I am now forced to revise that opinion. There are only two women in this book, but they are both fully realized and compelling. Other reviewers found Maria one-dimensional, but I thought she was fascinating because of what was hinted at, but not revealed, about her. Her staggering understatement to describe her time as a prisoner of war - "Things were done to me" - is wonderful. She was tragic and sweet, and on a related note, Hemingway writes some surprisingly good sex scenes, so there's that.

And Pilar. Holy crap. Probably one of the most well-done characters I've ever read, she's alternately the mother figure, the best friend, the confidante, and the villain. Pilar is my new spirit animal.

A war story without heroes or villains, full of hollow victories and rage against the bureaucracy of war and what people under pressure can be forced to do, filled with some very good meditations on killing and war and love, and the importance of acting beyond personal gain. Well done, Mr. Hemingway.

(I should also add that Campbell Scott, who read the audiobook, does a fantastic job - he makes the characters' voices different enough for you to tell them apart without difficulty, and his Robert Jordan voice is exactly how I imagine Hemingway sounded in real life. If you're considering reading this, I'd recommend tracking down the audio version)
]]> The Age of Innocence 53835 The Age of Innocence is Edith Wharton’s masterful portrait of desire and betrayal during the sumptuous Golden Age of Old New York, a time when society people “dreaded scandal more than disease.�

This is Newland Archer’s world as he prepares to marry the beautiful but conventional May Welland. But when the mysterious Countess Ellen Olenska returns to New York after a disastrous marriage, Archer falls deeply in love with her. Torn between duty and passion, Archer struggles to make a decision that will either courageously define his life—or mercilessly destroy it.]]> 293 Edith Wharton 159308143X Madeline 4 the-list Gossip Girl.

But Madeline! you exclaim, probably choking on a biscuit and dropping your teacup because you are one refined gentleman or lady, didn't you write a scathing review of the first back in 2008 where you ranked it below goddamn Twilight on the scale of Books That Should Not Be Considered Books?

Ah yes, my little blueberries, how right you are. Gossip Girl, the book, is pulpy badly-written trash that fails to even fulfill the most basic requirement of trash lit - being interesting - after three books (I say authoritatively, having read eight of them in high school). But Gossip Girl, the show, is the motherfucking tits. It's the best kind of soap opera trash, and I spent a month last year ripping through four seasons on Netflix before I finally abandoned it when it reached what I considered to be the apex of its trashy-crazy-fun potential (if you're curios, it was that episode where Blair strikes a sex bargain in exchange for a hotel and paperwork was involved, and no, I did not make up or exaggerate a single word of that). I love the show because it's so weird and foreign it might as well be science fiction - the show is an in-depth look at a strange world with its own weird customs, rules, and language (and very pretty clothes). Like most people, I am fascinated by the obscenely wealthy and the tiny insulated world they inhabit, and Gossip Girl is a great outlet for that curiosity. There's even a episode in the show where the kids perform Age of Innocence at their fancy private school, so even the show is aware of the connection I'm making.

Age of Innocence is a better-written, better-plotted, probably better-acted version of Gossip Girl. It's about rich New Yorkers living their rich, socially restrictive lives and trying to convince themselves that they're happy in this absurdly structured society they've created for themselves, to the point where they'll deny their own happiness in order to maintain the status quo. And somehow, the fact that un-engaged couples aren't even allowed to kiss, much less have sex, made the romance elements that much more passionate.

Our main character here is Newland Archer, a wealthy young man who lives a charmed life: he's rich, is engaged to a wonderful girl, and believes that he understands the rules of the world he inhabits:

"In matters intellectual and artistic Newland Archer felt himself distinctly the superior of these chosen specimens of old New York gentility; he had probably read more, thought more, and even seen a good deal more of the world, than any other man of the number. Singly they betrayed their inferiority, but grouped together they represented 'New York,' and the habit of masculine solidarity made him accept their doctrine on all the issues called moral. He instinctively felt that in this respect it would be troublesome - and also rather bad form - to strike out for himself."

Things change, however, when Countess Ellen Olenska comes to New York. The daughter of a prominent family, she's returned to the United States after escaping an abusive husband. Society shuns her, and her family is mostly concerned with getting her to go back to her husband, but there's an instant and very palpable attraction between her and Archer. Suddenly, he starts seeing his entire well-structured world in a whole new light, including his previously-perfect fiancee May:

"She was frank, poor darling, because she had nothing to conceal, assured because she knew of nothing to be on her guard against...But when he had gone the brief round of her he returned discouraged by the thought that all this frankness and innocence were only an artificial product. Untrained human nature was not frank and innocent; it was full of the twists and defences of an instinctive guile. And he felt himself oppressed by this creation of factitious purity, so cunningly manufactured by a conspiracy of mothers and aunts and grandmothers and long-dead ancestresses, because it was supposed to be what he wanted, what he had a right to, in order than he might exercise his lordly pleasure in smashing it like an image made of snow."

Newland, in fact, starts questioning the entire damn system, and having some very unapproved and modern thoughts, most of which are too sensible to make an appearance on Gossip Girl:

"Newland reddened. 'Living together? Well, why not? Who had the right to make her life over if she hadn't? I'm sick of the hypocrisy that would bury alive a woman of her age if her husband prefers to live with harlots.'
He stopped and turned away angrily to light his cigar. 'Women ought to be free - as free as we are,' he declared, making a discovery of which he was too irritated to measure the terrific consequences."

Tragic, beautiful, dramatic, and scandalizing. I had so much more fun reading this than I expected to, and will definitely be looking up more Edith Wharton in the future. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go watch some more Gossip Girl. When I left off, Blair was dating a prince and Georgina had just lied about being pregnant with Dan Humphrey's baby.]]> 3.96 1920 The Age of Innocence
author: Edith Wharton
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.96
book published: 1920
rating: 4
read at: 2012/11/01
date added: 2012/11/27
shelves: the-list
review:
It's time to get something off my chest, guys: I love Gossip Girl.

But Madeline! you exclaim, probably choking on a biscuit and dropping your teacup because you are one refined gentleman or lady, didn't you write a scathing review of the first back in 2008 where you ranked it below goddamn Twilight on the scale of Books That Should Not Be Considered Books?

Ah yes, my little blueberries, how right you are. Gossip Girl, the book, is pulpy badly-written trash that fails to even fulfill the most basic requirement of trash lit - being interesting - after three books (I say authoritatively, having read eight of them in high school). But Gossip Girl, the show, is the motherfucking tits. It's the best kind of soap opera trash, and I spent a month last year ripping through four seasons on Netflix before I finally abandoned it when it reached what I considered to be the apex of its trashy-crazy-fun potential (if you're curios, it was that episode where Blair strikes a sex bargain in exchange for a hotel and paperwork was involved, and no, I did not make up or exaggerate a single word of that). I love the show because it's so weird and foreign it might as well be science fiction - the show is an in-depth look at a strange world with its own weird customs, rules, and language (and very pretty clothes). Like most people, I am fascinated by the obscenely wealthy and the tiny insulated world they inhabit, and Gossip Girl is a great outlet for that curiosity. There's even a episode in the show where the kids perform Age of Innocence at their fancy private school, so even the show is aware of the connection I'm making.

Age of Innocence is a better-written, better-plotted, probably better-acted version of Gossip Girl. It's about rich New Yorkers living their rich, socially restrictive lives and trying to convince themselves that they're happy in this absurdly structured society they've created for themselves, to the point where they'll deny their own happiness in order to maintain the status quo. And somehow, the fact that un-engaged couples aren't even allowed to kiss, much less have sex, made the romance elements that much more passionate.

Our main character here is Newland Archer, a wealthy young man who lives a charmed life: he's rich, is engaged to a wonderful girl, and believes that he understands the rules of the world he inhabits:

"In matters intellectual and artistic Newland Archer felt himself distinctly the superior of these chosen specimens of old New York gentility; he had probably read more, thought more, and even seen a good deal more of the world, than any other man of the number. Singly they betrayed their inferiority, but grouped together they represented 'New York,' and the habit of masculine solidarity made him accept their doctrine on all the issues called moral. He instinctively felt that in this respect it would be troublesome - and also rather bad form - to strike out for himself."

Things change, however, when Countess Ellen Olenska comes to New York. The daughter of a prominent family, she's returned to the United States after escaping an abusive husband. Society shuns her, and her family is mostly concerned with getting her to go back to her husband, but there's an instant and very palpable attraction between her and Archer. Suddenly, he starts seeing his entire well-structured world in a whole new light, including his previously-perfect fiancee May:

"She was frank, poor darling, because she had nothing to conceal, assured because she knew of nothing to be on her guard against...But when he had gone the brief round of her he returned discouraged by the thought that all this frankness and innocence were only an artificial product. Untrained human nature was not frank and innocent; it was full of the twists and defences of an instinctive guile. And he felt himself oppressed by this creation of factitious purity, so cunningly manufactured by a conspiracy of mothers and aunts and grandmothers and long-dead ancestresses, because it was supposed to be what he wanted, what he had a right to, in order than he might exercise his lordly pleasure in smashing it like an image made of snow."

Newland, in fact, starts questioning the entire damn system, and having some very unapproved and modern thoughts, most of which are too sensible to make an appearance on Gossip Girl:

"Newland reddened. 'Living together? Well, why not? Who had the right to make her life over if she hadn't? I'm sick of the hypocrisy that would bury alive a woman of her age if her husband prefers to live with harlots.'
He stopped and turned away angrily to light his cigar. 'Women ought to be free - as free as we are,' he declared, making a discovery of which he was too irritated to measure the terrific consequences."

Tragic, beautiful, dramatic, and scandalizing. I had so much more fun reading this than I expected to, and will definitely be looking up more Edith Wharton in the future. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go watch some more Gossip Girl. When I left off, Blair was dating a prince and Georgina had just lied about being pregnant with Dan Humphrey's baby.
]]> <![CDATA[The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn]]> 2956 327 Mark Twain 0142437174 Madeline 4 the-list The Adventures of Tom Sawyer in middle school, and I fervently wish that they had made us read Huck Finn instead. I mean, I understand why they didn't (giving middle schoolers an excuse to throw around racial slurs in a classroom setting is just asking for a lawsuit from somebody's parents), but Huck Finn is better. It's smarter, it's funnier, and Huck's adventures stay with you a lot longer than Tom's, because Huck's experiences were richer and more interesting, whereas The Adventures of Tom Sawyer could easily have been titled The Adventures of an Entitled Little Asshole.

If Tom had to go through half of what happens to Huck in this story, he'd be balled up in the corner crying after five minutes. The action of Huck Finn is set in motion when Huck's father shows up and decides that he's going to be responsible for his son now (the story picks up right where Tom Sawyer left off, with Huck and Tom becoming rich, hence Finn Sr.'s sudden involvement in his kid's life). Huck's father essentially kidnaps him, taking him to a cabin in the middle of nowhere and getting drunk and beating his son. Huck escapes by faking his own death (and it's awesome) and begins traveling up the Mississippi river. He runs into Jim, a slave who belonged to the Widow Douglas's sister. Jim overheard his owner talking about selling him, so he decided to run away and try to go north. Huck, after some hesitation, goes with him. From this point, the structure of the book closely mirrors Don Quixote: a mismatched pair of companions travels the country, having unrelated adventures and comic intervals. On their travels, Huck and Jim encounter con men, criminals, slave traders, and (in the best mini-story in the book) a family involved in a Hatfields-and-McCoys-like feud with a neighboring clan. The story comes full circle when Tom Sawyer shows up and joins Jim and Huck for the last of their adventures, and the best part of this is that Tom Sawyer's overall ridiculousness becomes obvious once we see him through Huck's eyes.

Huck is a great narrator, and I think one of the reasons I liked this book more than its counterpart was because it's narrated in first person, and so Huck's voice is able to come through clearly in every word. In addition to the great stories, there are also some really beautiful descriptions of the Mississippi river, as seen in this passage about the sun rising on the river:

"The first thing to see, looking away over the water, was a kind of dull line - that was the woods on t'other side - you couldn't make nothing else out; then a pale place in the sky; then more paleness, spreading around; then the river softened up, away off, and warn't black any more, but grey; you could see little dark spots drifting along, ever so far away - trading scows, and such things; and long black streaks - rafts; sometimes you could hear a sweep screaking, or jumbled up voices; it was so still, and sounds come so far; and by and by you could see a streak on the water which you know by the look of the streak that there's a snag there in a swift current which breaks on it and makes that streak look that way; and you see the mist curl up off of the water, and the east reddens up, and the river, and you make out a log cabin on the edge of the woods, away on the bank on t'other side of the river, being a wood-yard, likely, and pulled by them cheats so you can throw a dog through it anywheres; then the nice breeze springs up, and comes fanning you from over there, so cool and fresh, and sweet to smell, on account of the woods and the flowers; but sometimes not that way, because they've left dead fish laying around, gars and such, and they do get pretty rank; and next you've got the full day, and everything smiling in the sun, and the song-birds just going it!"

(also that was one single sentence. Damn, Mark Twain.)

A fun, deceptively light series of stories that's funny and sad when you least expect it. Well done, The List - you picked a good one, for once.




...why are you still here? The review's over.




Oh, I get it. You want me to talk about the racism, right? You want me to discuss how Huck views Jim as stolen property instead of a person and criticize the frequent use of the N-Word and say "problematic" a lot, right?

Well, tough titties. I'm not getting involved in that, because it's stupid and pointless, and I'm just going to let Mark Twain's introduction to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn speak for itself, and the work as a whole: "Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot."]]> 3.82 1884 The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
author: Mark Twain
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.82
book published: 1884
rating: 4
read at: 2012/11/01
date added: 2012/11/19
shelves: the-list
review:
I had to read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer in middle school, and I fervently wish that they had made us read Huck Finn instead. I mean, I understand why they didn't (giving middle schoolers an excuse to throw around racial slurs in a classroom setting is just asking for a lawsuit from somebody's parents), but Huck Finn is better. It's smarter, it's funnier, and Huck's adventures stay with you a lot longer than Tom's, because Huck's experiences were richer and more interesting, whereas The Adventures of Tom Sawyer could easily have been titled The Adventures of an Entitled Little Asshole.

If Tom had to go through half of what happens to Huck in this story, he'd be balled up in the corner crying after five minutes. The action of Huck Finn is set in motion when Huck's father shows up and decides that he's going to be responsible for his son now (the story picks up right where Tom Sawyer left off, with Huck and Tom becoming rich, hence Finn Sr.'s sudden involvement in his kid's life). Huck's father essentially kidnaps him, taking him to a cabin in the middle of nowhere and getting drunk and beating his son. Huck escapes by faking his own death (and it's awesome) and begins traveling up the Mississippi river. He runs into Jim, a slave who belonged to the Widow Douglas's sister. Jim overheard his owner talking about selling him, so he decided to run away and try to go north. Huck, after some hesitation, goes with him. From this point, the structure of the book closely mirrors Don Quixote: a mismatched pair of companions travels the country, having unrelated adventures and comic intervals. On their travels, Huck and Jim encounter con men, criminals, slave traders, and (in the best mini-story in the book) a family involved in a Hatfields-and-McCoys-like feud with a neighboring clan. The story comes full circle when Tom Sawyer shows up and joins Jim and Huck for the last of their adventures, and the best part of this is that Tom Sawyer's overall ridiculousness becomes obvious once we see him through Huck's eyes.

Huck is a great narrator, and I think one of the reasons I liked this book more than its counterpart was because it's narrated in first person, and so Huck's voice is able to come through clearly in every word. In addition to the great stories, there are also some really beautiful descriptions of the Mississippi river, as seen in this passage about the sun rising on the river:

"The first thing to see, looking away over the water, was a kind of dull line - that was the woods on t'other side - you couldn't make nothing else out; then a pale place in the sky; then more paleness, spreading around; then the river softened up, away off, and warn't black any more, but grey; you could see little dark spots drifting along, ever so far away - trading scows, and such things; and long black streaks - rafts; sometimes you could hear a sweep screaking, or jumbled up voices; it was so still, and sounds come so far; and by and by you could see a streak on the water which you know by the look of the streak that there's a snag there in a swift current which breaks on it and makes that streak look that way; and you see the mist curl up off of the water, and the east reddens up, and the river, and you make out a log cabin on the edge of the woods, away on the bank on t'other side of the river, being a wood-yard, likely, and pulled by them cheats so you can throw a dog through it anywheres; then the nice breeze springs up, and comes fanning you from over there, so cool and fresh, and sweet to smell, on account of the woods and the flowers; but sometimes not that way, because they've left dead fish laying around, gars and such, and they do get pretty rank; and next you've got the full day, and everything smiling in the sun, and the song-birds just going it!"

(also that was one single sentence. Damn, Mark Twain.)

A fun, deceptively light series of stories that's funny and sad when you least expect it. Well done, The List - you picked a good one, for once.




...why are you still here? The review's over.




Oh, I get it. You want me to talk about the racism, right? You want me to discuss how Huck views Jim as stolen property instead of a person and criticize the frequent use of the N-Word and say "problematic" a lot, right?

Well, tough titties. I'm not getting involved in that, because it's stupid and pointless, and I'm just going to let Mark Twain's introduction to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn speak for itself, and the work as a whole: "Persons attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot."
]]> The Maltese Falcon 51068 217 Dashiell Hammett 0679722645 Madeline 4
Let's be honest, you probably have. But luckily this is no ordinary dame. And the office belongs to no ordinary detective. They are Miss Wonderly (not her only name, by the way) and Sam Spade, the mold by which all hard-boiled fast-talking slang-laden detective stories are made. The Maltese Falcon chronicles their shared adventures chasing a valuable, bejeweled falcon statuette that's been stolen and brought to San Francisco. There are fistfights, gunfights, slapping fights, lots of well-dressed men trading banter while well-dressed women watch, people get murdered, the police blunder around, everybody drinks a lot, and it's fucking awesome. Along with his talent for writing dialogue and action scenes, Dashiell Hammett also has a gift for physical description, as seen here:

"She was tall and pliantly slender, without angularity anywhere. Her body was erect and high-breasted, her legs long, her hands and feet narrow. She wore two shades of blue that had been chosen because of her eyes. The hair curling from under her blue hat was darkly red, her full lips more brightly red. White teeth glistened in the crescent her timid smile made."

and here:

"The fat man was flabbily fat with bulbous pink cheeks and lips and chins and neck, with a great soft egg of a belly that was all his torso, and pendant cones for arms and legs. As he advanced to meet Spade all his bulbs rose and shook and fell separately with each step, in the manner of clustered soap bubbles not yet released from the pipe through which they had been blown. His eyes, made small by fat puffs around them, were dark and sleek. Dark ringlets thinly covered his broad scalp. He wore a black cutaway coat, black vest, black sating Ascot tie holding a pinkish pearl, striped grey worsted trousers, and patent-leather shoes."

The best part of all of this, really, is that a book that's full of all the awesome stuff I've described above is on the list of 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die. So, take that George Elliot.

Read for: Social Forces in the Detective Novel

]]> 3.74 1930 The Maltese Falcon
author: Dashiell Hammett
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.74
book published: 1930
rating: 4
read at: 2010/09/01
date added: 2012/10/20
shelves: the-list, assigned-reading, detective-fiction
review:
So, a dame walks into a private detective's office...stop me if you've heard this one before.

Let's be honest, you probably have. But luckily this is no ordinary dame. And the office belongs to no ordinary detective. They are Miss Wonderly (not her only name, by the way) and Sam Spade, the mold by which all hard-boiled fast-talking slang-laden detective stories are made. The Maltese Falcon chronicles their shared adventures chasing a valuable, bejeweled falcon statuette that's been stolen and brought to San Francisco. There are fistfights, gunfights, slapping fights, lots of well-dressed men trading banter while well-dressed women watch, people get murdered, the police blunder around, everybody drinks a lot, and it's fucking awesome. Along with his talent for writing dialogue and action scenes, Dashiell Hammett also has a gift for physical description, as seen here:

"She was tall and pliantly slender, without angularity anywhere. Her body was erect and high-breasted, her legs long, her hands and feet narrow. She wore two shades of blue that had been chosen because of her eyes. The hair curling from under her blue hat was darkly red, her full lips more brightly red. White teeth glistened in the crescent her timid smile made."

and here:

"The fat man was flabbily fat with bulbous pink cheeks and lips and chins and neck, with a great soft egg of a belly that was all his torso, and pendant cones for arms and legs. As he advanced to meet Spade all his bulbs rose and shook and fell separately with each step, in the manner of clustered soap bubbles not yet released from the pipe through which they had been blown. His eyes, made small by fat puffs around them, were dark and sleek. Dark ringlets thinly covered his broad scalp. He wore a black cutaway coat, black vest, black sating Ascot tie holding a pinkish pearl, striped grey worsted trousers, and patent-leather shoes."

The best part of all of this, really, is that a book that's full of all the awesome stuff I've described above is on the list of 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die. So, take that George Elliot.

Read for: Social Forces in the Detective Novel


]]> Bonjour tristesse 61672
La villa est magnifique, l'été brûlant, la Méditerranée toute proche. Cécile a dix-sept ans. Elle ne connaît de l'amour que des baisers, des rendez-vous, des lassitudes. Pas pour longtemps. Son père, veuf, est un adepte joyeux des liaisons passagères et sans importance. Ils s'amusent, ils n'ont besoin de personne, ils sont heureux. La visite d'une femme de cœur, intelligente et calme, vient troubler ce délicieux désordre. Comment écarter la menace ? Dans la pinède embrasée, un jeu cruel se prépare.
C'était l'été 1954. On entendait pour la première fois la voix sèche et rapide d'un « charmant petit monstre » qui allait faire scandale. la deuxième moitié du XXe siècle commençait. Elle serait à l'image de cette adolescente déchirée entre le remords et le culte du plaisir.

Set against the translucent beauty of France in summer, Bonjour Tristesse is a bittersweet tale narrated by Cecile, a seventeen-year-old girl on the brink of womanhood, whose meddling in her father's love life leads to tragic consequences.

Endearing, self-absorbed, seventeen-year-old Cécile is the very essence of untroubled amorality. Freed from the stifling constraints of boarding school, she joins her father—a handsome, still-young widower with a wandering eye—for a carefree, two-month summer vacation in a beautiful villa outside of Paris with his latest mistress. Cécile cherishes the free-spirited moments she and her father share, while plotting her own sexual adventures with a "tall and almost beautiful" law student. But the arrival of her late mother's best friend intrudes upon a young girl's pleasures. And when a relationship begins to develop between the adults, Cécile and her lover set in motion a plan to keep them apart...with tragic, unexpected consequences.

The internationally beloved story of a precocious teenager's attempts to understand and control the world around her, Françoise Sagan's Bonjour Tristesse is a beautifully composed, wonderfully ambiguous celebration of sexual liberation, at once sympathetic and powerfully unsparing.]]> 154 Françoise Sagan 2266127748 Madeline 4 the-list
This lovely little novel, deceptively slim, made me want to read it while lying on a beach. It's full of rich French people being delightfully and almost stereotypically French at their villa in the Mediterranean, and all the romantic drama and emotional backstabbing that occurs there. The narrator, Cecile, is enjoying her hedonistic lifestyle when her playboy father announces, unexpectedly, that he is getting married. The woman in question is Anne, a family friend who is the opposite of the previous mistresses Cecile's father has had: she's elegant, poised, practical, intelligent, dignified, and forty-two. Cecile recognizes the threat that Anne poses to her carefree life, and decides to destroy the relationship:

"She would gradually turn us into the husband and step-daughter of Anne Larsen, that is to say, she would turn us into two civilized, well-behaved and contented persons. For she would certainly be good to us. How easily - unstable and irresponsible as we were - we would yield to her influence, and be fitted into the attractive framework of her orderly plan of living. She was much too efficient. Already my father was separated from me. I was hurt by his embarrassed face, turning away from me at the table. Tears came to my eyes at the thought of the jokes we used to have together, our gay laughter as we drove home at dawn through the deserted streets of Paris. All that was over. In my turn I would be influenced, readjusted, remodeled by Anne. I would not even mind it, she would handle me with such intelligence, humor, and sweetness. I wouldn't be able to resist her. In six months I should no longer even want to."

In another writer's hands, this story could have gone horribly wrong - Cecile has every opportunity to turn into a spoiled rich brat who can't stand the idea of being forced to behave like an adult with responsibilities, and the way she tries to destroy her father's happiness could be seen as the actions of a borderline-psychotic. The genius of Sagan's book is that she doesn't try to justify Cecile's actions. We see the horrible truth of what Cecile is doing, and so does Cecile. Every few chapters (sometimes every few pages) Cecile will have a moment of clarity, and realize that Anne is a good person and that her father is happy, and she regrets her meddling. But then she goes right back to her destructive plan, because she can't help herself. By letting us see Cecile wrestling with her own conscience, and ultimately being unable to resist her destructive urge, Sagan creates one of the best portrayals of a teenage girl I've ever read.

"Although I did not share my father's intense aversion to ugliness - which often led us to associate with stupid people - I did feel vaguely uncomfortable in the presence of anyone completely devoid of physical charm. Their resignation to the fact that they were unattractive seemed to me somehow indecent. For what are we looking for if not to please? I do not know if the desire to attract others comes from a superabundance of vitality, possessiveness, or the hidden, unspoken need to be reassured."]]> 3.76 1954 Bonjour tristesse
author: Françoise Sagan
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.76
book published: 1954
rating: 4
read at: 2012/09/01
date added: 2012/09/17
shelves: the-list
review:
"That summer, I was seventeen and perfectly happy. ...My father was forty, and had been a widower for fifteen years. He was young for his age, full of vitality and liveliness. When I left my convent school two years before and came to Paris to live with him, I soon realized that he was living with a woman. But I was slower in accepting the fact that his fancy changed every six months! But gradually his charm, my new easy life, and my own disposition, led me to fall in readily with his ways. He was a frivolous man, clever at business, always curious, quickly bored, and very attractive to women. It was easy for me to love him, for he was kind, generous, gay, and fond of me. I cannot imagine a better or more amusing companion."

This lovely little novel, deceptively slim, made me want to read it while lying on a beach. It's full of rich French people being delightfully and almost stereotypically French at their villa in the Mediterranean, and all the romantic drama and emotional backstabbing that occurs there. The narrator, Cecile, is enjoying her hedonistic lifestyle when her playboy father announces, unexpectedly, that he is getting married. The woman in question is Anne, a family friend who is the opposite of the previous mistresses Cecile's father has had: she's elegant, poised, practical, intelligent, dignified, and forty-two. Cecile recognizes the threat that Anne poses to her carefree life, and decides to destroy the relationship:

"She would gradually turn us into the husband and step-daughter of Anne Larsen, that is to say, she would turn us into two civilized, well-behaved and contented persons. For she would certainly be good to us. How easily - unstable and irresponsible as we were - we would yield to her influence, and be fitted into the attractive framework of her orderly plan of living. She was much too efficient. Already my father was separated from me. I was hurt by his embarrassed face, turning away from me at the table. Tears came to my eyes at the thought of the jokes we used to have together, our gay laughter as we drove home at dawn through the deserted streets of Paris. All that was over. In my turn I would be influenced, readjusted, remodeled by Anne. I would not even mind it, she would handle me with such intelligence, humor, and sweetness. I wouldn't be able to resist her. In six months I should no longer even want to."

In another writer's hands, this story could have gone horribly wrong - Cecile has every opportunity to turn into a spoiled rich brat who can't stand the idea of being forced to behave like an adult with responsibilities, and the way she tries to destroy her father's happiness could be seen as the actions of a borderline-psychotic. The genius of Sagan's book is that she doesn't try to justify Cecile's actions. We see the horrible truth of what Cecile is doing, and so does Cecile. Every few chapters (sometimes every few pages) Cecile will have a moment of clarity, and realize that Anne is a good person and that her father is happy, and she regrets her meddling. But then she goes right back to her destructive plan, because she can't help herself. By letting us see Cecile wrestling with her own conscience, and ultimately being unable to resist her destructive urge, Sagan creates one of the best portrayals of a teenage girl I've ever read.

"Although I did not share my father's intense aversion to ugliness - which often led us to associate with stupid people - I did feel vaguely uncomfortable in the presence of anyone completely devoid of physical charm. Their resignation to the fact that they were unattractive seemed to me somehow indecent. For what are we looking for if not to please? I do not know if the desire to attract others comes from a superabundance of vitality, possessiveness, or the hidden, unspoken need to be reassured."
]]> Midnight’s Children 14836 An alternative cover edition for this ISBN can be found here.

Saleem Sinai is born at the stroke of midnight on August 15, 1947, the very moment of India’s independence. Greeted by fireworks displays, cheering crowds, and Prime Minister Nehru himself, Saleem grows up to learn the ominous consequences of this coincidence. His every act is mirrored and magnified in events that sway the course of national affairs; his health and well-being are inextricably bound to those of his nation; his life is inseparable, at times indistinguishable, from the history of his country. Perhaps most remarkable are the telepathic powers linking him with India’s 1,000 other “midnight’s children,� all born in that initial hour and endowed with magical gifts.

This novel is at once a fascinating family saga and an astonishing evocation of a vast land and its people–a brilliant incarnation of the universal human comedy. Twenty-five years after its publication, Midnight� s Children stands apart as both an epochal work of fiction and a brilliant performance by one of the great literary voices of our time.]]> 647 Salman Rushdie 0099578514 Madeline 4 the-list I am not speaking metaphorically; nor is this the opening gambit of some melodramatic, riddling, grubby appeal for pity. I mean quite simply that I have begun to crack all over like an old jug - that my poor body, singular, unlovely, buffeted by too much history, subjected to drainage above and drainage below, mutilated by doors, brained by spittoons, has started coming apart at the seams. In short, I am literally disintegrating, slowly for the moment, although there are signs of acceleration. I ask you only to accept (as I have accepted) that I shall eventually crumble into (approximately) six hundred and thirty million particles of anonymous, and necessarily oblivious, dust. That is why I have resolved to confide in paper, before I forget. (We are a nation of forgetters.)"

Saleem Sinai chronicles the history of his life, beginning with his grandparents' childhoods and continuing through their marriage, his parents' lives, and his own childhood and adolescence. Because Sinai was born at the stroke of midnight on the day India became independent in 1947, the story of his life is also the story of India's transformation into an independent nation. Events in Sinai's life constantly intersect with and affect India's political struggles, and everything is influenced by his family's varied and complex history. It's a blend of One Hundred Years of Solitude and Middlesex, and if nothing else you will walk away from this book amazed at Rushdie's skill as a writer. Aside from the downright masterful way he makes every single event and character in the story connect and matter, the way he writes is just mindblowingly good.

In fact, there are only two things that prevent me from giving this the full five stars, and they are:

1. Saleem Sinai is such a dick. The events of his life directly coincide with (and occasionally affect) major historical events, and also he can read minds (more on that later). This is enough to convince him that he is the single greatest, most important human being ever to walk the earth, and nothing could be as impressive as he is. Think I'm exaggerating? Let him tell you himself:

"It is possible, even probable, that I am only the first historian to write the story of my undeniably exceptional life-and-times. Those who follow in my footsteps will, however, inevitably come to this present work, this source-book, this Hadith or Purana or Grundrisse, for guidance and inspiration."

Oh my god, get over yourself.

Sinai's direct audience is his girlfriend Padma, who is listening to the story as Sinai writes it and appears periodically to give her opinions on what's happening. Sinai treats her like dirt - he makes fun of her name, shakes his head at how adorably stupid she is, and is generally such a condescending ass that I kept waiting for Padma to slap him in the face. The best part: whenever Padma listens to Sinai's story, she literally kneels at his feet while he sits and reads to her. No wonder the guy has a Messiah complex.

It's okay to have a story with an unlikeable hero, but I honestly believe that Rushdie isn't aware of what a colossal douchebag his protagonist is. I think in Rushdie's mind, Sinai is a perfectly good person and is totally justified in his lofty opinion of himself. This is unfortunate.

2. Do you ever read a book and see the beginnings of another story within it, something that the author never explores as much as you'd like them to, or even a completely different direction you wish they'd taken? That was my experience with Midnight's Children.

The title comes from the fact that Sinai wasn't the only kid born in India at midnight on independence day - there were actually several hundred children born within that minute, and they all have magical powers or mutations of some kind. The ones born at the top of the minute have the strongest powers, and the ones born in the last few seconds of the minute just have weird mutations. There are two kids born on the very first second of midnight: Sinai, and a boy named Shiva. Sinai can read minds, as I said, but he can also communicate telepathically with all the other Midnight's Children, and they can use him as a conduit to talk telepathically to each other. So Sinai and Shiva, as the leaders of the Midnight's Children, organize the group and hold telepathic conferences, trying to decide what to do with their vast array of powers. While Sinai wants to use the group's abilities to do good, Shiva is violent and cruel, and uses his powers for evil. They're constantly battling against each other, and meanwhile the other four hundred Midnight's Children all have their own ideas about how to use their powers. (one kid, a time-traveler, warns them that everything will end horribly)

I know Salman Rushdie is a respected author who is taken very very seriously in the literary world, but I'm going to be honest: Midnight's Children would have made one hell of a comic book. Hundreds of child superheroes and wizards, led by two very different leaders who are constantly at odds with each other, and in an added twist [spoilers removed]? A narrator who thinks of himself as the good guy but is actually just as selfish as his evil alter ego, Shiva? Tell me how that wouldn't be awesome.
]]> 3.98 1981 Midnight’s Children
author: Salman Rushdie
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.98
book published: 1981
rating: 4
read at:
date added: 2012/04/15
shelves: the-list
review:
"Please believe that I am falling apart.
I am not speaking metaphorically; nor is this the opening gambit of some melodramatic, riddling, grubby appeal for pity. I mean quite simply that I have begun to crack all over like an old jug - that my poor body, singular, unlovely, buffeted by too much history, subjected to drainage above and drainage below, mutilated by doors, brained by spittoons, has started coming apart at the seams. In short, I am literally disintegrating, slowly for the moment, although there are signs of acceleration. I ask you only to accept (as I have accepted) that I shall eventually crumble into (approximately) six hundred and thirty million particles of anonymous, and necessarily oblivious, dust. That is why I have resolved to confide in paper, before I forget. (We are a nation of forgetters.)"

Saleem Sinai chronicles the history of his life, beginning with his grandparents' childhoods and continuing through their marriage, his parents' lives, and his own childhood and adolescence. Because Sinai was born at the stroke of midnight on the day India became independent in 1947, the story of his life is also the story of India's transformation into an independent nation. Events in Sinai's life constantly intersect with and affect India's political struggles, and everything is influenced by his family's varied and complex history. It's a blend of One Hundred Years of Solitude and Middlesex, and if nothing else you will walk away from this book amazed at Rushdie's skill as a writer. Aside from the downright masterful way he makes every single event and character in the story connect and matter, the way he writes is just mindblowingly good.

In fact, there are only two things that prevent me from giving this the full five stars, and they are:

1. Saleem Sinai is such a dick. The events of his life directly coincide with (and occasionally affect) major historical events, and also he can read minds (more on that later). This is enough to convince him that he is the single greatest, most important human being ever to walk the earth, and nothing could be as impressive as he is. Think I'm exaggerating? Let him tell you himself:

"It is possible, even probable, that I am only the first historian to write the story of my undeniably exceptional life-and-times. Those who follow in my footsteps will, however, inevitably come to this present work, this source-book, this Hadith or Purana or Grundrisse, for guidance and inspiration."

Oh my god, get over yourself.

Sinai's direct audience is his girlfriend Padma, who is listening to the story as Sinai writes it and appears periodically to give her opinions on what's happening. Sinai treats her like dirt - he makes fun of her name, shakes his head at how adorably stupid she is, and is generally such a condescending ass that I kept waiting for Padma to slap him in the face. The best part: whenever Padma listens to Sinai's story, she literally kneels at his feet while he sits and reads to her. No wonder the guy has a Messiah complex.

It's okay to have a story with an unlikeable hero, but I honestly believe that Rushdie isn't aware of what a colossal douchebag his protagonist is. I think in Rushdie's mind, Sinai is a perfectly good person and is totally justified in his lofty opinion of himself. This is unfortunate.

2. Do you ever read a book and see the beginnings of another story within it, something that the author never explores as much as you'd like them to, or even a completely different direction you wish they'd taken? That was my experience with Midnight's Children.

The title comes from the fact that Sinai wasn't the only kid born in India at midnight on independence day - there were actually several hundred children born within that minute, and they all have magical powers or mutations of some kind. The ones born at the top of the minute have the strongest powers, and the ones born in the last few seconds of the minute just have weird mutations. There are two kids born on the very first second of midnight: Sinai, and a boy named Shiva. Sinai can read minds, as I said, but he can also communicate telepathically with all the other Midnight's Children, and they can use him as a conduit to talk telepathically to each other. So Sinai and Shiva, as the leaders of the Midnight's Children, organize the group and hold telepathic conferences, trying to decide what to do with their vast array of powers. While Sinai wants to use the group's abilities to do good, Shiva is violent and cruel, and uses his powers for evil. They're constantly battling against each other, and meanwhile the other four hundred Midnight's Children all have their own ideas about how to use their powers. (one kid, a time-traveler, warns them that everything will end horribly)

I know Salman Rushdie is a respected author who is taken very very seriously in the literary world, but I'm going to be honest: Midnight's Children would have made one hell of a comic book. Hundreds of child superheroes and wizards, led by two very different leaders who are constantly at odds with each other, and in an added twist [spoilers removed]? A narrator who thinks of himself as the good guy but is actually just as selfish as his evil alter ego, Shiva? Tell me how that wouldn't be awesome.

]]> Sense and Sensibility 14935 Alternate cover edition of ISBN 9780141439662

'The more I know of the world, the more am I convinced that I shall never see a man whom I can really love. I require so much!'

Marianne Dashwood wears her heart on her sleeve, and when she falls in love with the dashing but unsuitable John Willoughby she ignores her sister Elinor's warning that her impulsive behaviour leaves her open to gossip and innuendo. Meanwhile Elinor, always sensitive to social convention, is struggling to conceal her own romantic disappointment, even from those closest to her. Through their parallel experience of love—and its threatened loss—the sisters learn that sense must mix with sensibility if they are to find personal happiness in a society where status and money govern the rules of love.

This edition includes explanatory notes, textual variants between the first and second editions, and Tony Tanner's introduction to the original Penguin Classic edition.]]> 409 Jane Austen 0141439661 Madeline 2 the-list, ugh
I hate them for a wide variety of reasons - I hate their formulaic plots, their repeated character tropes that never seem to change (hmm, will this one have a sassy best friend who only exists to dispense advice?), I hate their consistent failing of the , and I hate the way they try to make me believe that a skinny and gorgeous woman is incapable of finding a man because she's clumsy or has a job or something.

But mostly, I hate them because their plots revolve entirely around what boy likes what girl and vice versa, and nothing else ever happens. Sure, there can be subplots, and yes, brilliant romantic comedies do exist, but I want my movie protagonists to do more than worry about who they're going to marry.

Reading Sense and Sensibility made me realize why I don't like Jane Austen's books, and probably never will: she was a brilliant author, and her novels are funny and well-written, but at the end of the day, her characters spend 90% of their time talking about boys. Nothing else happens: they go to a ball, where they worry about which boy isn't dancing with them; they have tea, where they talk about which girls have snagged which boys; and they write letters about which girls have done scandalous things with boys. It's just pages and pages of "I like you but you hate me!" "No, I really love you, you were just misinformed!" "My, what a silly misunderstanding!" "I agree! Let's get married!" and all its variations and it bores me to death. I love the humor, and I love the characters, I just want them to do something interesting. This is probably why Pride and Prejudice and Zombies resonated so well with me - finally, the Bennett sisters got to do something besides sit around and mope about the various boys who weren't talking to them for whatever reason!

Sense and Sensibility is one long slog of "I love this boy! But oh no, he's engaged to someone else!" and "This boy acted like he loved me but he really didn't and now I am sad and will ignore the other boy who has clearly been meant to marry me all along!" It's for this reason that, when faced with the prospect of reading the last 70 pages of this book in order to finish it, I was filled with dread and realized that I do not give a single flying fuck who the Dashwood sisters end up marrying. The only thing that would make me want to finish the book is if the story ends with Elinor and Marianne deciding to go off to college or travel to China or fight zombies or do something besides get married. But I know they won't, because this is an Austen novel, and things only end one way here.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with romantic comedies - they're funny, lighthearted entertainment where everyone is beautiful and nothing hurts, and the people who get unhappy endings were mean people and deserved it anyway. I do not begrudge anyone for liking this kind of entertainment - it's just not my taste, and I won't waste any time feeling bad about this.

Sorry, Ms. Austen. I gave it my all, but it's just not going to work out. But don't worry: it's not you, it's me. ]]> 4.10 1811 Sense and Sensibility
author: Jane Austen
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.10
book published: 1811
rating: 2
read at: 2012/03/01
date added: 2012/03/19
shelves: the-list, ugh
review:
I hate romantic comedies.

I hate them for a wide variety of reasons - I hate their formulaic plots, their repeated character tropes that never seem to change (hmm, will this one have a sassy best friend who only exists to dispense advice?), I hate their consistent failing of the , and I hate the way they try to make me believe that a skinny and gorgeous woman is incapable of finding a man because she's clumsy or has a job or something.

But mostly, I hate them because their plots revolve entirely around what boy likes what girl and vice versa, and nothing else ever happens. Sure, there can be subplots, and yes, brilliant romantic comedies do exist, but I want my movie protagonists to do more than worry about who they're going to marry.

Reading Sense and Sensibility made me realize why I don't like Jane Austen's books, and probably never will: she was a brilliant author, and her novels are funny and well-written, but at the end of the day, her characters spend 90% of their time talking about boys. Nothing else happens: they go to a ball, where they worry about which boy isn't dancing with them; they have tea, where they talk about which girls have snagged which boys; and they write letters about which girls have done scandalous things with boys. It's just pages and pages of "I like you but you hate me!" "No, I really love you, you were just misinformed!" "My, what a silly misunderstanding!" "I agree! Let's get married!" and all its variations and it bores me to death. I love the humor, and I love the characters, I just want them to do something interesting. This is probably why Pride and Prejudice and Zombies resonated so well with me - finally, the Bennett sisters got to do something besides sit around and mope about the various boys who weren't talking to them for whatever reason!

Sense and Sensibility is one long slog of "I love this boy! But oh no, he's engaged to someone else!" and "This boy acted like he loved me but he really didn't and now I am sad and will ignore the other boy who has clearly been meant to marry me all along!" It's for this reason that, when faced with the prospect of reading the last 70 pages of this book in order to finish it, I was filled with dread and realized that I do not give a single flying fuck who the Dashwood sisters end up marrying. The only thing that would make me want to finish the book is if the story ends with Elinor and Marianne deciding to go off to college or travel to China or fight zombies or do something besides get married. But I know they won't, because this is an Austen novel, and things only end one way here.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with romantic comedies - they're funny, lighthearted entertainment where everyone is beautiful and nothing hurts, and the people who get unhappy endings were mean people and deserved it anyway. I do not begrudge anyone for liking this kind of entertainment - it's just not my taste, and I won't waste any time feeling bad about this.

Sorry, Ms. Austen. I gave it my all, but it's just not going to work out. But don't worry: it's not you, it's me.
]]> Black Water 15974 The Pulitzer Prize-nominated novel from the author of the New York Times bestselling novel We Were the Mulvaneys

Joyce Carol Oates has taken a shocking story that has become an American myth and, from it, has created a novel of electrifying power and illumination. Kelly Kelleher is an idealistic, twenty-six-year-old “good girl� when she meets the Senator at a Fourth of July party. In a brilliantly woven narrative, we enter her past and her present, her mind and her body as she is fatally attracted to this older man, this hero, this soon-to-be-lover. Kelly becomes the very embodiment of the vulnerable, romantic dreams of bright and brave women, drawn to the power that certain men command—at a party that takes on the quality of a surreal nightmare; in a tragic car ride that we hope against hope will not end as we know it must end. One of the acknowledged masters of American fiction, Joyce Carol Oates has written a bold tour de force that parts the black water to reveal the profoundest depths of human truth.]]> 160 Joyce Carol Oates 0452269865 Madeline 3 the-list
Here are the facts: on the night of July 18th 1969, Ted Kennedy left a party held on Chappaquiddick, an island near Martha's Vineyard. In the car with him was Mary Jo Kopechne, a young woman who had worked on Robert Kennedy's campaign. On their way to the ferry, Ted Kennedy accidentally drove the car off the road and into Poucha Pond. The car landed upside down underwater, and although Kennedy was able to escape the car, Kopechne was not. Kennedy claimed he tried to swim to the car several times to help her, but was unable to reach her. After that, he walked away from the accident site, and the car was discovered the next morning by fishermen who then called the police.

Here are the creepy facts and suspicious circumstances: After trying unsuccessfully to reach the car, Ted Kennedy went back to the party, got several of his friends, and they returned to the site and tried to reach the car. When this didn't work, Kennedy took the ferry to his hotel and went to sleep. At no point during these events did he ever contact the police to tell them what had happened. When Kopechne's body was finally retrieved from the car, she was found in the backseat, hanging onto the seat with her face tilted upwards - suggesting that there was a pocket of air inside the car after the crash. According to John Farrar, the diver who retrieved her body: "It looked as if she were holding herself up to get a last breath of air. It was a consciously assumed position. ... She didn't drown. She died of suffocation in her own air void. It took her at least three or four hours to die."

I had no idea that this happened, much less that this woman was trapped in a car underwater for at least two hours.. "Nightmare" doesn't begin to describe it.

You can see how it would make a good subject for a novella: what was going through this woman's head as she was trapped in the car, dying slowly, hoping to be rescued? And what better person to tackle this sensitive and terrifying subject than Joyce "Men Are Bad and Will Hurt You" Carol Oates?

If you've read Blonde, you have a good idea of how this story is going to go. Oates goes for the obvious and most sinister explanations possible: of course her Kopechne stand-in, Kelly, is a wide-eye and naive idealist with a hefty dose of daddy issues and little romantic experience. Of course her sex life gets described like this:

"She'd cried out, short high-pitched gasping cries, she'd sobbed, she'd heard her voice distant, wild, pleading reverberating out of the corners of the darkened room, Oh I love you, I love you, I love love love you, their bodies slapping and sucking hot-clammy with sweat, hair plastered to their heads with sweat, you know you're somebody's little girl don't you? don't you?"

and this:

"...since girlhood, kissing and being kissed, Kelly Kelleher had always felt, not her own, but the other's, the male's, desire. Quick and galvanizing as an electric shock.
Feeling too, once she caught her breath, that familiar wave of anxiety, guilt - I've made you want me, now I can't refuse you."

Joyce Carol Oates, you are exhausting.

And of course Ted Kennedy (aka "the Senator") is an aging, predatory creep who takes full advantage of Kelly's daddy issues. Of course he's not only drunk when he drives Kelly to the ferry, but is actually drinking a cocktail as he crashed the car. And of course he not only leaves Kelly behind in the car, but actually kicks her away in his haste to escape.

Oates has this gift for inspiring outrage on behalf of the supposed villain of her historical retellings. In my review of Blonde I was furious at her one-sided portrayal of Tony Curtis, who was by all accounts a total douchebag, but something about Oates's version of him seemed so deliberately evil, so patently unfair. Black Water was like that. Could we have a little ambiguity, please? Some sliver of goodness in the Senator, something about Kelly to suggest that she's more than just some wide-eyed innocent trapped in the older man's web? No, we can't - the Senator is a bad, bad man and Kelly was a good, good girl and that is that, thank you.

In fact, as I read, I started to be more interested in the Senator's side of the story. There are so many more questions there: when he tried to swim down to the car, did he think Kelly was alive? How, when he was walking back to the party, did he not see any lights from nearby houses and try to call for help there? Why did he call his friend first and not the police? Why didn't he call the police at all? What was going through his mind after he had escaped the car?

I wanted to read that story, I realized. Kelly's story was terrifying and sad, of course, but the Senator's was where the real mystery was. All Kelly did was drown (WELL that's the most horrible sentence I've ever typed in my life). Alternating viewpoints - going back and forth between Kelly and the Senator before, during, and after the accident - would have been much more interesting, and would have meant a fuller experience (and a longer book)

Ultimately, this story succeeded because it made me really want to read more about the actual Chappaquiddick incident, but not because I appreciated Oates's take on the event. By now, I've learned that when it comes to retelling historical events, she can be extremely one-sided and sensationalist.
]]> 3.57 1992 Black Water
author: Joyce Carol Oates
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.57
book published: 1992
rating: 3
read at: 2012/02/01
date added: 2012/03/01
shelves: the-list
review:
The firs time I heard about the so-called Chappaquiddick incident was in college. It was right after Ted Kennedy died, and we were talking about it in one of my classes, and we got around to the various Kennedy scandals, and then my professor remarked, "you know, everyone on the news keeps talking about all the good things that Ted Kennedy did during his life - no one's mentioned how he was responsible for a woman's death."

Here are the facts: on the night of July 18th 1969, Ted Kennedy left a party held on Chappaquiddick, an island near Martha's Vineyard. In the car with him was Mary Jo Kopechne, a young woman who had worked on Robert Kennedy's campaign. On their way to the ferry, Ted Kennedy accidentally drove the car off the road and into Poucha Pond. The car landed upside down underwater, and although Kennedy was able to escape the car, Kopechne was not. Kennedy claimed he tried to swim to the car several times to help her, but was unable to reach her. After that, he walked away from the accident site, and the car was discovered the next morning by fishermen who then called the police.

Here are the creepy facts and suspicious circumstances: After trying unsuccessfully to reach the car, Ted Kennedy went back to the party, got several of his friends, and they returned to the site and tried to reach the car. When this didn't work, Kennedy took the ferry to his hotel and went to sleep. At no point during these events did he ever contact the police to tell them what had happened. When Kopechne's body was finally retrieved from the car, she was found in the backseat, hanging onto the seat with her face tilted upwards - suggesting that there was a pocket of air inside the car after the crash. According to John Farrar, the diver who retrieved her body: "It looked as if she were holding herself up to get a last breath of air. It was a consciously assumed position. ... She didn't drown. She died of suffocation in her own air void. It took her at least three or four hours to die."

I had no idea that this happened, much less that this woman was trapped in a car underwater for at least two hours.. "Nightmare" doesn't begin to describe it.

You can see how it would make a good subject for a novella: what was going through this woman's head as she was trapped in the car, dying slowly, hoping to be rescued? And what better person to tackle this sensitive and terrifying subject than Joyce "Men Are Bad and Will Hurt You" Carol Oates?

If you've read Blonde, you have a good idea of how this story is going to go. Oates goes for the obvious and most sinister explanations possible: of course her Kopechne stand-in, Kelly, is a wide-eye and naive idealist with a hefty dose of daddy issues and little romantic experience. Of course her sex life gets described like this:

"She'd cried out, short high-pitched gasping cries, she'd sobbed, she'd heard her voice distant, wild, pleading reverberating out of the corners of the darkened room, Oh I love you, I love you, I love love love you, their bodies slapping and sucking hot-clammy with sweat, hair plastered to their heads with sweat, you know you're somebody's little girl don't you? don't you?"

and this:

"...since girlhood, kissing and being kissed, Kelly Kelleher had always felt, not her own, but the other's, the male's, desire. Quick and galvanizing as an electric shock.
Feeling too, once she caught her breath, that familiar wave of anxiety, guilt - I've made you want me, now I can't refuse you."

Joyce Carol Oates, you are exhausting.

And of course Ted Kennedy (aka "the Senator") is an aging, predatory creep who takes full advantage of Kelly's daddy issues. Of course he's not only drunk when he drives Kelly to the ferry, but is actually drinking a cocktail as he crashed the car. And of course he not only leaves Kelly behind in the car, but actually kicks her away in his haste to escape.

Oates has this gift for inspiring outrage on behalf of the supposed villain of her historical retellings. In my review of Blonde I was furious at her one-sided portrayal of Tony Curtis, who was by all accounts a total douchebag, but something about Oates's version of him seemed so deliberately evil, so patently unfair. Black Water was like that. Could we have a little ambiguity, please? Some sliver of goodness in the Senator, something about Kelly to suggest that she's more than just some wide-eyed innocent trapped in the older man's web? No, we can't - the Senator is a bad, bad man and Kelly was a good, good girl and that is that, thank you.

In fact, as I read, I started to be more interested in the Senator's side of the story. There are so many more questions there: when he tried to swim down to the car, did he think Kelly was alive? How, when he was walking back to the party, did he not see any lights from nearby houses and try to call for help there? Why did he call his friend first and not the police? Why didn't he call the police at all? What was going through his mind after he had escaped the car?

I wanted to read that story, I realized. Kelly's story was terrifying and sad, of course, but the Senator's was where the real mystery was. All Kelly did was drown (WELL that's the most horrible sentence I've ever typed in my life). Alternating viewpoints - going back and forth between Kelly and the Senator before, during, and after the accident - would have been much more interesting, and would have meant a fuller experience (and a longer book)

Ultimately, this story succeeded because it made me really want to read more about the actual Chappaquiddick incident, but not because I appreciated Oates's take on the event. By now, I've learned that when it comes to retelling historical events, she can be extremely one-sided and sensationalist.

]]> <![CDATA[Interview with the Vampire (The Vampire Chronicles, #1)]]> 43763
Louis and Claudia travel Europe, eventually coming to Paris and the ragingly successful Theatre des Vampires--a theatre of vampires pretending to be mortals pretending to be vampires. Here they meet the magnetic and ethereal Armand, who brings them into a whole society of vampires. But Louis and Claudia find that finding others like themselves provides no easy answers and in fact presents dangers they scarcely imagined.

Originally begun as a short story, the book took off as Anne wrote it, spinning the tragic and triumphant life experiences of a soul. As well as the struggles of its characters, Interview captures the political and social changes of two continents. The novel also introduces Lestat, Anne's most enduring character, a heady mixture of attraction and revulsion. The book, full of lush description, centers on the themes of immortality, change, loss, sexuality, and power.
source: annerice.com]]> 346 Anne Rice 0345476875 Madeline 2
(I cannot stress how shiny-gold this cover is. Like, the ancient Egyptians would look at this cover and say, "That's a bit much." It was awful.)

Okay, so the book itself isn't bad, really - hence my rating of two stars, which Ĺ·±¦ÓéŔÖ classifies as "it was ok." That's what the book is: just okay. Maybe I would have been more thrilled by the story if I hadn't seen the movie - even though there's stuff in the book that didn't make it into the movie, none of it is particularly thrilling. At least the movie made the wise decision to keep the blatant, in-your-face-but-unacknowledged homoeroticism (seriously, this book is, and I mean this in the most literal way possible, the gayest thing I've ever read) but changed the fact that a) Claudia is only five years old in the book and b) she and Louis do everything except actually have sex with each other. They're always kissing and caressing each other and Louis is calling her his lover and his paramour and it is so fucking creepy.

But, lest we forget, vampire books are supposed to be creepy. In these post-Twilight days, it's easy to forget that there was once a time where vampires fucked and killed and were a general amoral all-around good time, and if one of them chose to be all broody and sad about being a vampire he was the weird one that no one else wanted to hang out with. God, I miss those days - to the point where I considered giving this an extra star, just because I was so grateful to read a story about vampires who do actual vampire stuff and it's sexy and scary instead of boring and schmoopy.

Also good was how in-depth Rice goes into the psychology of vampires, and I loved her explanation for why they haven't overrun the planet: most vampires are miserable, and end up killing themselves. Explains Armand, who I will continue to picture as Antonio Banderas and you can't stop me:

"How many vampires do you think have the stamina for immortality? They have the most dismal notions of immortality to begin with. For in becoming immortal they want all the forms of their life to be fixed as they are and incorruptible...When, in fact, all things change except the vampire himself; everything except the vampire is subject to constant corruption and distortion. Soon, with an inflexible mind, and often even with the most flexible mind, this immortality becomes a penitential sentence in a madhouse of figures and forms that are hopelessly unintelligible and without value. One evening a vampire rises and realizes what he has feared perhaps for decades, that he simply wants no more of life at any cost."

That part was pretty cool. But as for the rest, I'll just watch the movie, thanks. Or not, because if we're going to be honest I don't even like the movie that much. It's probably time to admit to myself that I have no interest in reading about/watching any vampires not created by Joss Whedon. Sorry, Ms. Rice, but if my vampires must be broody, I at least want them to be funny and charming too. (or Alexander Skarsgard, because )]]> 4.04 1976 Interview with the Vampire (The Vampire Chronicles, #1)
author: Anne Rice
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.04
book published: 1976
rating: 2
read at: 2012/02/01
date added: 2012/02/23
shelves: no-judgements, the-list, the-movie-is-better
review:
Damn you straight to hell, 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, for what you made me do. You made me read a goddamn vampire book. Not only that, you made me read a vampire book with a cover made entirely of shiny ostentatious material that shouted to everyone in the library as I checked this out, "Look everyone! Madeline is reading a book about vampires! SHINY SHINY SHINY LOOK AT ME! I CONTAIN SEXY BROODING VAMPIRES AND I AM SO EFFING SHINY."

(I cannot stress how shiny-gold this cover is. Like, the ancient Egyptians would look at this cover and say, "That's a bit much." It was awful.)

Okay, so the book itself isn't bad, really - hence my rating of two stars, which Ĺ·±¦ÓéŔÖ classifies as "it was ok." That's what the book is: just okay. Maybe I would have been more thrilled by the story if I hadn't seen the movie - even though there's stuff in the book that didn't make it into the movie, none of it is particularly thrilling. At least the movie made the wise decision to keep the blatant, in-your-face-but-unacknowledged homoeroticism (seriously, this book is, and I mean this in the most literal way possible, the gayest thing I've ever read) but changed the fact that a) Claudia is only five years old in the book and b) she and Louis do everything except actually have sex with each other. They're always kissing and caressing each other and Louis is calling her his lover and his paramour and it is so fucking creepy.

But, lest we forget, vampire books are supposed to be creepy. In these post-Twilight days, it's easy to forget that there was once a time where vampires fucked and killed and were a general amoral all-around good time, and if one of them chose to be all broody and sad about being a vampire he was the weird one that no one else wanted to hang out with. God, I miss those days - to the point where I considered giving this an extra star, just because I was so grateful to read a story about vampires who do actual vampire stuff and it's sexy and scary instead of boring and schmoopy.

Also good was how in-depth Rice goes into the psychology of vampires, and I loved her explanation for why they haven't overrun the planet: most vampires are miserable, and end up killing themselves. Explains Armand, who I will continue to picture as Antonio Banderas and you can't stop me:

"How many vampires do you think have the stamina for immortality? They have the most dismal notions of immortality to begin with. For in becoming immortal they want all the forms of their life to be fixed as they are and incorruptible...When, in fact, all things change except the vampire himself; everything except the vampire is subject to constant corruption and distortion. Soon, with an inflexible mind, and often even with the most flexible mind, this immortality becomes a penitential sentence in a madhouse of figures and forms that are hopelessly unintelligible and without value. One evening a vampire rises and realizes what he has feared perhaps for decades, that he simply wants no more of life at any cost."

That part was pretty cool. But as for the rest, I'll just watch the movie, thanks. Or not, because if we're going to be honest I don't even like the movie that much. It's probably time to admit to myself that I have no interest in reading about/watching any vampires not created by Joss Whedon. Sorry, Ms. Rice, but if my vampires must be broody, I at least want them to be funny and charming too. (or Alexander Skarsgard, because )
]]> The Years 18852 The Years is a savage indictment of British society at the turn of the century, edited with an introduction and notes by Jeri Johnson in Penguin Modern Classics.

The Years is the story of three generations of the Pargiter family - their intimacies and estrangements, anxieties and triumphs - mapped out against the bustling rhythms of London's streets during the first decades of the twentieth century. Growing up in a typically Victorian household, the Pargiter children must learn to find their footing in an alternative world, where the rules of etiquette have shifted from the drawing-room to the air-raid shelter. A work of fluid and dazzling lucidity, The Years eschews a simple line of development in favour of a varied and constantly changing style, emphasises the radical discontinuity of personal experiences and historical events. Virginia Woolf's penultimate novel celebrates the resilience of the individual self and, in her dazzlingly fluid and distinctive voice, she confidently paints a broad canvas across time, generation and class.]]> 444 Virginia Woolf 0141185325 Madeline 4 the-list Mrs Dalloway or To The Lighthouse - having read all three books now, I will concede the Mrs Dalloway point, but I think I liked The Years better than To the Lighthouse. The two stories are similar, in that they deal with an extended family and the perspective switches from person to person and the closest you get to an action scene is everyone sitting around and talking, but the scope of The Years is much wider (it deals with several generations of a family and spans decades, rather than a couple years) and seemed, at least to me, to be slightly easier to follow than To the Lighthouse. I would definitely have better luck explaining the plot of this book to someone who had never read it.

But that's not what I wanted to talk about, and not what you came here to see. The reason I write Woolf book reviews isn't to write a critique of the books (because who am I to analyze Woolf?) but to quote the everloving bejeezus out of whatever I just read, because no one is more equipped to demonstrate the greatness of Virginia Woolf than Woolf herself.

Reading this book made me realize yet another reason I love Woolf's writing - the scope of her writing is immense. She draws back and describes entire cities from a deity-like distance, seen here when she shows us England in the snow:

"Snow was falling; snow had fallen all day. The sky spread like a grey goose's wing from which feathers were falling all over England. The sky was nothing but a flurry of falling flakes. Lanes were levelled; hollows filled; the snow clogged the streams, obscured windows, and lay wedged against doors. There was a faint murmur in the air, a slight crepitation, as if the air itself were turning to snow; otherwise all was silent, save when a sheep coughed, snow flopped from a branch, or slipped in an avalanche down some roof in London. Now and again a shaft of light spread slowly across the sky as a car drove through the muffled roads. But as the night wore on, snow covered the wheel ruts; softened to nothingness the marks of the traffic, and coated monuments, palaces and statues with a thick vestment of snow."

and then she zooms in a little bit, like this perfect description of the crowd at an opera:

"The orchestra was still tuning up; the players were laughing, talking and turning round in their seats as they fiddled busily with their instruments. She stood looking down at the stalls. The floor of the house was in a state of great agitation. People were passing to their seats; they were sitting down and getting up again; they were taking off their cloaks and signalling to friends. They were like birds settling on a field. In the boxes white figures were appearing here and there; white arms rested on the ledges of boxes; white shirt-fronts shone beside them. The whole house glowed - red, gold, cream-colored, and smelt of clothes and flowers, and echoed with the squeaks and trills of the instruments and with the buzz and hum of voices. ...Lights winked on ladies' arms as they turned; ripples of light flashed, stopped, and then flashed the opposite way as they turned their heads."

and then she goes closer, looking at objects on an almost microscopic level, until we share her fascination with ordinary objects and people:

"But what vast gaps there were, what blank spaces, she thought, leaning back in her chair, in her knowledge! How little she knew about anything. Take this cup, for instance; she held it out in front of her. What was it made of? Atoms? And what were atoms, and how did they stick together? The smooth hard surface of the china with its red flowers seemed to her for a second a marvelous mystery."

That's why I love Virginia Woolf: she can look at a snowstorm in a city, and a single china cup, and study both of them with the same level of interest and detail, and make both subjects seem new and fascinating. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go stare at my dishes and think about my life for a while. ]]> 3.77 1937 The Years
author: Virginia Woolf
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.77
book published: 1937
rating: 4
read at: 2012/02/01
date added: 2012/02/18
shelves: the-list
review:
Other reviews tell me that this isn't as good as Mrs Dalloway or To The Lighthouse - having read all three books now, I will concede the Mrs Dalloway point, but I think I liked The Years better than To the Lighthouse. The two stories are similar, in that they deal with an extended family and the perspective switches from person to person and the closest you get to an action scene is everyone sitting around and talking, but the scope of The Years is much wider (it deals with several generations of a family and spans decades, rather than a couple years) and seemed, at least to me, to be slightly easier to follow than To the Lighthouse. I would definitely have better luck explaining the plot of this book to someone who had never read it.

But that's not what I wanted to talk about, and not what you came here to see. The reason I write Woolf book reviews isn't to write a critique of the books (because who am I to analyze Woolf?) but to quote the everloving bejeezus out of whatever I just read, because no one is more equipped to demonstrate the greatness of Virginia Woolf than Woolf herself.

Reading this book made me realize yet another reason I love Woolf's writing - the scope of her writing is immense. She draws back and describes entire cities from a deity-like distance, seen here when she shows us England in the snow:

"Snow was falling; snow had fallen all day. The sky spread like a grey goose's wing from which feathers were falling all over England. The sky was nothing but a flurry of falling flakes. Lanes were levelled; hollows filled; the snow clogged the streams, obscured windows, and lay wedged against doors. There was a faint murmur in the air, a slight crepitation, as if the air itself were turning to snow; otherwise all was silent, save when a sheep coughed, snow flopped from a branch, or slipped in an avalanche down some roof in London. Now and again a shaft of light spread slowly across the sky as a car drove through the muffled roads. But as the night wore on, snow covered the wheel ruts; softened to nothingness the marks of the traffic, and coated monuments, palaces and statues with a thick vestment of snow."

and then she zooms in a little bit, like this perfect description of the crowd at an opera:

"The orchestra was still tuning up; the players were laughing, talking and turning round in their seats as they fiddled busily with their instruments. She stood looking down at the stalls. The floor of the house was in a state of great agitation. People were passing to their seats; they were sitting down and getting up again; they were taking off their cloaks and signalling to friends. They were like birds settling on a field. In the boxes white figures were appearing here and there; white arms rested on the ledges of boxes; white shirt-fronts shone beside them. The whole house glowed - red, gold, cream-colored, and smelt of clothes and flowers, and echoed with the squeaks and trills of the instruments and with the buzz and hum of voices. ...Lights winked on ladies' arms as they turned; ripples of light flashed, stopped, and then flashed the opposite way as they turned their heads."

and then she goes closer, looking at objects on an almost microscopic level, until we share her fascination with ordinary objects and people:

"But what vast gaps there were, what blank spaces, she thought, leaning back in her chair, in her knowledge! How little she knew about anything. Take this cup, for instance; she held it out in front of her. What was it made of? Atoms? And what were atoms, and how did they stick together? The smooth hard surface of the china with its red flowers seemed to her for a second a marvelous mystery."

That's why I love Virginia Woolf: she can look at a snowstorm in a city, and a single china cup, and study both of them with the same level of interest and detail, and make both subjects seem new and fascinating. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go stare at my dishes and think about my life for a while.
]]> Treasure Island 295 Treasure Island has never been surpassed. From the moment young Jim Hawkins first encounters the sinister Blind Pew at the Admiral Benbow Inn until the climactic battle for treasure on a tropic isle, the novel creates scenes and characters that have fired the imaginations of generations of readers. Written by a superb prose stylist, a master of both action and atmosphere, the story centers upon the conflict between good and evil - but in this case a particularly engaging form of evil. It is the villainy of that most ambiguous rogue Long John Silver that sets the tempo of this tale of treachery, greed, and daring. Designed to forever kindle a dream of high romance and distant horizons, Treasure Island is, in the words of G. K. Chesterton, 'the realization of an ideal, that which is promised in its provocative and beckoning map; a vision not only of white skeletons but also green palm trees and sapphire seas.' G. S. Fraser terms it 'an utterly original book' and goes on to write: 'There will always be a place for stories like Treasure Island that can keep boys and old men happy.']]> 352 Robert Louis Stevenson 0753453800 Madeline 2 the-list, the-movie-is-better
Regardless of what you think of Treasure Island as a story (and we'll get there, not to worry), its importance in establishing modern adventure tropes can't be denied. So many of the things we think of when we imagine pirates - peg legs, parrots on shoulders, fifteen men on a dead man's chest, the Black Spot - were invented by Stevenson in this book. Basically every single portrayal of pirates created after this story is based in some way on what Stevenson wrote, so if nothing else I appreciate this book for providing us with everything from Captain Hook to Jack Sparrow. ("Captain Jack Sparrow.")

So it's just too bad that I didn't enjoy this book as much as I wanted to. Sure, it's exciting for a while, what with the murderous pirates attacking the inn and Jim Hawkins setting out on a crazy treasure-hunting adventure, but around the time they get to the island the plot grinds practically to a halt. It takes chapters and chapters for them to get anywhere or do anything, and I was immensely appreciative of how movie versions of this story make sure to move the action along quickly once they land on the island. Also, Book Jim is kind of an idiot - he stows away with Silver & Co. when they row to the island (even though Jim knows that Silver is evil) just for the hell of it, and he abandons his friends again once they're on the island and have a stronghold set up, because the best thing to do when you're on a strange island full of pirates who want to kill you is go exploring without telling anyone.

Also you'll notice in the passage I quoted above, Jim's father is alive at the beginning of the story. He dies pretty quickly, but I prefer how in the movie versions Jim's dad is long gone, having abandoned his son or died a long time ago. It just makes more narrative sense: in order for him to latch on to Long John Silver so quickly, Jim needs to be saddled with enough daddy issues to embarrass a stripper.

So in conclusion, I'm glad I read this book, if only to appreciate its cultural significance, but the movie versions I've seen are infinitely more enjoyable.

(In case anyone is curious, I have seen two different film versions of Treasure Island. First is Muppet Treasure Island, which makes Stevenson's original seem plodding and boring and horribly miscast - Captain Smollett is and always will be Kermit, and there has never been a better Long John Silver than Tim Curry. Also, Disney's experimental steampunk take on the story, Treasure Planet is highly underrated, in my opinion.)]]> 3.84 1882 Treasure Island
author: Robert Louis Stevenson
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.84
book published: 1882
rating: 2
read at: 2012/01/01
date added: 2012/01/02
shelves: the-list, the-movie-is-better
review:
"Squire Trelawney, Dr. Livesey, and the rest of these gentlemen having asked me to write down the whole particulars of Treasure Island, from the beginning to the end, keeping nothing back but the bearings of the island, and that only because there is still treasure not yet lifted, I take up my pen in the year of grace 17- and go back to the time when my father kept the Admiral Benbow inn and the brown old seaman with the sabre cut first took up his lodging under our roof."

Regardless of what you think of Treasure Island as a story (and we'll get there, not to worry), its importance in establishing modern adventure tropes can't be denied. So many of the things we think of when we imagine pirates - peg legs, parrots on shoulders, fifteen men on a dead man's chest, the Black Spot - were invented by Stevenson in this book. Basically every single portrayal of pirates created after this story is based in some way on what Stevenson wrote, so if nothing else I appreciate this book for providing us with everything from Captain Hook to Jack Sparrow. ("Captain Jack Sparrow.")

So it's just too bad that I didn't enjoy this book as much as I wanted to. Sure, it's exciting for a while, what with the murderous pirates attacking the inn and Jim Hawkins setting out on a crazy treasure-hunting adventure, but around the time they get to the island the plot grinds practically to a halt. It takes chapters and chapters for them to get anywhere or do anything, and I was immensely appreciative of how movie versions of this story make sure to move the action along quickly once they land on the island. Also, Book Jim is kind of an idiot - he stows away with Silver & Co. when they row to the island (even though Jim knows that Silver is evil) just for the hell of it, and he abandons his friends again once they're on the island and have a stronghold set up, because the best thing to do when you're on a strange island full of pirates who want to kill you is go exploring without telling anyone.

Also you'll notice in the passage I quoted above, Jim's father is alive at the beginning of the story. He dies pretty quickly, but I prefer how in the movie versions Jim's dad is long gone, having abandoned his son or died a long time ago. It just makes more narrative sense: in order for him to latch on to Long John Silver so quickly, Jim needs to be saddled with enough daddy issues to embarrass a stripper.

So in conclusion, I'm glad I read this book, if only to appreciate its cultural significance, but the movie versions I've seen are infinitely more enjoyable.

(In case anyone is curious, I have seen two different film versions of Treasure Island. First is Muppet Treasure Island, which makes Stevenson's original seem plodding and boring and horribly miscast - Captain Smollett is and always will be Kermit, and there has never been a better Long John Silver than Tim Curry. Also, Disney's experimental steampunk take on the story, Treasure Planet is highly underrated, in my opinion.)
]]> The Girls of Slender Means 69517
Chosen by Anthony Burgess as one of the Best Modern Novels in the Sunday Times of London, The Girls of Slender Means is a taut and eerily perfect novel by an author The New York Times has called "one of this century's finest creators of comic-metaphysical entertainment."]]> 140 Muriel Spark 081121379X Madeline 5 the-list
"Long ago in 1945 all the nice people in England were poor, allowing for exceptions. The streets of the cities were lined with buildings in bad repair or in no repair at all, bomb-sites piled with stony rubble, houses like giant teeth in which decay had been drilled out, leaving only the cavity. Some bomb-ripped buildings looked like the ruins of ancient castles until, at a closer view, the wallpapers of various quite normal rooms would be visible, room above room, exposed, as on a stage, with one wall missing; sometimes a lavatory chain would dangle over nothing from a fourth- or fifth-floor ceiling; most of all the staircases survived, like a new art-form, leading up and up to an unspecified destination that made unusual demands on the mind's eye. All the nice people were poor; at least, that was a general axiom, the best of the rich being poor in spirit."

The story centers around the May of Teck Club, a boarding house for single young women working in London, and the lives of the women living there as they try to rebuild their lives after World War II. The girls do their best to resume some normalcy, trading clothing coupons, trying to maintain their diets despite limited food options, and sharing the one good dress in the club whenever one of them has a fancy date. In just 142 pages, Muriel Spark presents a large cast of characters, all fully-realized and dimensional and flawed, and it's frankly kind of amazing how much story she manages to fit into such a short book. For the majority it's just a light, fluffy novel of girls dating and having petty fights and chasing various men, like Sex and the City if it were set in post-war London and all the girls were poor and not horrible. It's deceptive lightness, though, because the ending is emotional and shattering, and I won't go into any more detail than that because it shouldn't be spoiled.

If you were underwhelmed by Spark's other book on The List, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, I recommend giving her another chance here. You won't be disappointed. ]]> 3.68 1963 The Girls of Slender Means
author: Muriel Spark
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.68
book published: 1963
rating: 5
read at: 2011/12/01
date added: 2011/12/27
shelves: the-list
review:
A stirring, beautiful novel that's deceptively short and light, and starts with what is now one of my favorite opening paragraphs in all literature:

"Long ago in 1945 all the nice people in England were poor, allowing for exceptions. The streets of the cities were lined with buildings in bad repair or in no repair at all, bomb-sites piled with stony rubble, houses like giant teeth in which decay had been drilled out, leaving only the cavity. Some bomb-ripped buildings looked like the ruins of ancient castles until, at a closer view, the wallpapers of various quite normal rooms would be visible, room above room, exposed, as on a stage, with one wall missing; sometimes a lavatory chain would dangle over nothing from a fourth- or fifth-floor ceiling; most of all the staircases survived, like a new art-form, leading up and up to an unspecified destination that made unusual demands on the mind's eye. All the nice people were poor; at least, that was a general axiom, the best of the rich being poor in spirit."

The story centers around the May of Teck Club, a boarding house for single young women working in London, and the lives of the women living there as they try to rebuild their lives after World War II. The girls do their best to resume some normalcy, trading clothing coupons, trying to maintain their diets despite limited food options, and sharing the one good dress in the club whenever one of them has a fancy date. In just 142 pages, Muriel Spark presents a large cast of characters, all fully-realized and dimensional and flawed, and it's frankly kind of amazing how much story she manages to fit into such a short book. For the majority it's just a light, fluffy novel of girls dating and having petty fights and chasing various men, like Sex and the City if it were set in post-war London and all the girls were poor and not horrible. It's deceptive lightness, though, because the ending is emotional and shattering, and I won't go into any more detail than that because it shouldn't be spoiled.

If you were underwhelmed by Spark's other book on The List, The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie, I recommend giving her another chance here. You won't be disappointed.
]]> <![CDATA[One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich]]> 17125 The only English translation authorized by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

First published in the Soviet journal Novy Mir in 1962, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich stands as a classic of contemporary literature. The story of labor-camp inmate Ivan Denisovich Shukhov, it graphically describes his struggle to maintain his dignity in the face of communist oppression. An unforgettable portrait of the entire world of Stalin's forced work camps, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is one of the most extraordinary literary documents to have emerged from the Soviet Union and confirms Solzhenitsyn's stature as "a literary genius whose talent matches that of Dosotevsky, Turgenev, Tolstoy"--Harrison Salisbury

This unexpurgated 1991 translation by H. T. Willetts is the only authorized edition available, and fully captures the power and beauty of the original Russian.]]> 182 Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Madeline 3 the-list cold snaps you!" (sorry, like twenty of those jokes occurred to me while reading this and I couldn't resist) Seriously though, in this book, fourteen below qualifies as "not so bad."

The book delivers exactly what the title promises: it describes the entire day, from waking up to falling asleep, of a man named Ivan Denisovich (Shukhov) in a Siberian work camp in Soviet Russia. Every single thing he does gets described, and if nothing else you will learn the complex social system and rules of a work camp, and how someone can survive in one for years without dying or completely falling apart. The tone is relentlessly bland and bleak, and nothing particularly exciting or revelatory ever happens. It's just a normal day, with good parts, bad parts, and a lot of tedium and repetition. It's a good thing that this is such a short book - the bleak tone and lack of plot works well for illustrating how repetitive and uninteresting life in a work camp was, but would have gotten really irritating if it continued any longer.

Okay, one more: In Soviet Russia, camp works you!]]> 3.98 1962 One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
author: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.98
book published: 1962
rating: 3
read at: 2011/11/01
date added: 2011/11/16
shelves: the-list
review:
The biggest thing I took away from this book was the decision that I will never, ever complain about how cold it is again. I thought I was desensitized to cold weather, being a Midwesterner, but then Solzhenitsyn came along and said, "Oh, you think you know cold? Bitch, in Soviet Russia, cold snaps you!" (sorry, like twenty of those jokes occurred to me while reading this and I couldn't resist) Seriously though, in this book, fourteen below qualifies as "not so bad."

The book delivers exactly what the title promises: it describes the entire day, from waking up to falling asleep, of a man named Ivan Denisovich (Shukhov) in a Siberian work camp in Soviet Russia. Every single thing he does gets described, and if nothing else you will learn the complex social system and rules of a work camp, and how someone can survive in one for years without dying or completely falling apart. The tone is relentlessly bland and bleak, and nothing particularly exciting or revelatory ever happens. It's just a normal day, with good parts, bad parts, and a lot of tedium and repetition. It's a good thing that this is such a short book - the bleak tone and lack of plot works well for illustrating how repetitive and uninteresting life in a work camp was, but would have gotten really irritating if it continued any longer.

Okay, one more: In Soviet Russia, camp works you!
]]> A Clockwork Orange 227463 A Clockwork Orange is a frightening fable about good and evil, and the meaning of human freedom. And when the state undertakes to reform Alex to "redeem" him, the novel asks, "At what cost?"

This edition includes the controversial last chapter not published in the first edition and Burgess's introduction "A Clockwork Orange Resucked."]]> 192 Anthony Burgess Madeline 4 the-list, science-fiction
-Franz Kafka

And what a powerful ax A Clockwork Orange is. ]]> 3.98 1962 A Clockwork Orange
author: Anthony Burgess
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.98
book published: 1962
rating: 4
read at:
date added: 2011/10/14
shelves: the-list, science-fiction
review:
“I believe that we should read only those book that bite and sting us. If a book we are reading does not rouse us with a blow to the head, then why read it? Because it will make us happy, you tell me? My God, we would also be happy if we had no books, and the books that make us happy we could, if necessary, write ourselves. What we need are books that affect us like some really grievous misfortune, like the death of one whom we loved more than ourselves, as if we were banished to distant forests, away from everybody, like a suicide; a book must be the ax for the frozen sea within us."

-Franz Kafka

And what a powerful ax A Clockwork Orange is.
]]> Anagrams 19635 228 Lorrie Moore 0446672726 Madeline 4 the-list
Did you read it? Seriously guys, it'll take you like two minutes. I'll wait.

Okay, good. So I don't know which came first, "Happy Endings" or Anagrams, but I feel almost sure that one of them had to influence the other. Anagrams is about two people, Benna and Gerard, who are in love - sort of. When we first meet them, they are living in adjacent apartments which they essentially share. Benna is a nightclub singer, Gerard works with preschoolers. We see them interact, talking about their lives and generally being messed-up people, and then a new chapter starts. In this one, Gerard is a singer and Benna teaches dance to senior citizens. They talk about their lives and are generally messed-up people, and then a new chapter starts. The details of Benna and Gerard's lives change, but the central story stays the same: two lonely, unhappy people are trying to figure out their lives and each other, and not doing a very good job at it.

I make it sound depressing, but it's surprisingly not. Lorrie Moore's characters are smart and witty and sprinkle their conversation with literary puns and play-on-words that are actually entertaining, unlike the work of some pun-loving authors I could name but won't (Did you guess Jasper Fforde? Jasper Fforde was the author I was talking about. It's Jasper FForde.) and she writes with that delightfully bitter, dry, funny voice I'm so fond of:

"One in Modern Dance class in college one sunny September afternoon we had been requested to be leaves tumbling ourselves across the arts quad. I knew how to perform it in a way that prevented embarrassment and indignity: One became a dead leaf, a cement leaf. One lay down on the dying grass and refused to blow and float and tumble. One merely crumpled. One was no fool. One did not listen to the teacher. One did not want to be spotted fluttering around on campus, like the others who were clearly psychotics. One did not like this college. One wanted only to fall in love and get a Marriage Equivalent. One just lay there."

Sometimes it's hard to figure out exactly what's going on in the book (especially in the beginning, when I didn't know about the shifting-details thing) and sometimes it's depressing and sometimes it's sort of hard to keep going, but I didn't care because the whole book is full of little spots of brilliance like this:

"I've found that you can best entrap ants with the corpse of another ant. A squashed one of their own in the middle of the floor, and boom, like stubborn Antigones, they rush out to bury their dead brother and get nabbed."

and that made it all worth it. ]]> 3.95 1986 Anagrams
author: Lorrie Moore
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.95
book published: 1986
rating: 4
read at: 2011/08/01
date added: 2011/08/18
shelves: the-list
review:
Margaret Atwood has a great short story called "Happy Endings" that I kept thinking about as I read this book. Read it and then continue with the review.

Did you read it? Seriously guys, it'll take you like two minutes. I'll wait.

Okay, good. So I don't know which came first, "Happy Endings" or Anagrams, but I feel almost sure that one of them had to influence the other. Anagrams is about two people, Benna and Gerard, who are in love - sort of. When we first meet them, they are living in adjacent apartments which they essentially share. Benna is a nightclub singer, Gerard works with preschoolers. We see them interact, talking about their lives and generally being messed-up people, and then a new chapter starts. In this one, Gerard is a singer and Benna teaches dance to senior citizens. They talk about their lives and are generally messed-up people, and then a new chapter starts. The details of Benna and Gerard's lives change, but the central story stays the same: two lonely, unhappy people are trying to figure out their lives and each other, and not doing a very good job at it.

I make it sound depressing, but it's surprisingly not. Lorrie Moore's characters are smart and witty and sprinkle their conversation with literary puns and play-on-words that are actually entertaining, unlike the work of some pun-loving authors I could name but won't (Did you guess Jasper Fforde? Jasper Fforde was the author I was talking about. It's Jasper FForde.) and she writes with that delightfully bitter, dry, funny voice I'm so fond of:

"One in Modern Dance class in college one sunny September afternoon we had been requested to be leaves tumbling ourselves across the arts quad. I knew how to perform it in a way that prevented embarrassment and indignity: One became a dead leaf, a cement leaf. One lay down on the dying grass and refused to blow and float and tumble. One merely crumpled. One was no fool. One did not listen to the teacher. One did not want to be spotted fluttering around on campus, like the others who were clearly psychotics. One did not like this college. One wanted only to fall in love and get a Marriage Equivalent. One just lay there."

Sometimes it's hard to figure out exactly what's going on in the book (especially in the beginning, when I didn't know about the shifting-details thing) and sometimes it's depressing and sometimes it's sort of hard to keep going, but I didn't care because the whole book is full of little spots of brilliance like this:

"I've found that you can best entrap ants with the corpse of another ant. A squashed one of their own in the middle of the floor, and boom, like stubborn Antigones, they rush out to bury their dead brother and get nabbed."

and that made it all worth it.
]]> Tender Is the Night 46164 Tender Is the Night is the tragic romance of the young actress Rosemary Hoyt and the stylish American couple Dick and Nicole Diver. A brilliant young psychiatrist at the time of his marriage, Dick is both husband and doctor to Nicole, whose wealth goads him into a lifestyle not his own, and whose growing strength highlights Dick's harrowing demise. A profound study of the romantic concept of character, Tender Is the Night is lyrical, expansive, and hauntingly evocative.]]> 430 F. Scott Fitzgerald Madeline 1 the-list, ugh
I love The Great Gatsby and I love The Beautiful and the Damned. And, as my dedication to The List proves, I love reading about rich white people and their Rich White People Problems. But everything about this book rubbed me the wrong way, for the following reasons (none of which, as I said, are Fitzgerald's fault. Well, maybe the last one.):

I first started this as an audiobook, which is a medium that I'm trying to get into thanks to my 40-minute commute to work. The problem is, it might be time to admit that I'm just bad at audiobooks. When the words aren't printed on the page in front of me, my mind tends to wander and suddenly I realize that the narrator is still talking and I haven't been paying attention for the past five minutes and am totally lost. This is a problem, particularly with this book, when you really have to pay attention to every word. But all of that wouldn't be so bad, except for the fact that...

This particular recorded version sucked. First, I was completely misled about the plot because the synopsis on the audiobook made it sound like Rosemary was the protagonist, so once I got to Book Two and the narrator kept talking about Nicole I didn't understand what was happening. Also, the particular narrator for this audiobook was awful. His voices were just bad: grating and stupid, and I couldn't understand why he made all the characters sound so plummy and old. Everyone in this book sounded like they were sixty, which is simply wrong.

After soldiering on to about the 3/4 point, I admitted defeat and found a print copy of the book at the library and started reading where the audiobook had left off. I was spared the annoying narration, and by this point had figured out who the protagonists really were, but I still hated the book. And here's why:

I don't care about these characters. Usually I can find some sympathy for Fitzgerald's fascinating and damaged people, but not here. It was probably a result of my bad experience with the audiobook for the majority of the story, but for whatever reason I could not muster so much as an ounce of sympathy or appreciation for these selfish, stupid, rich jerks who can't seem to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to realize how thoroughly they've fucked up their lives. I found myself wishing that all the characters would get shipped to the Congo so they could learn what real suffering looks like, and then I knew that the book could never be redeemed in my eyes.

I'm sorry, Scott. I think you're a genius, I really do, but I have never struggled so much to get through the final twenty pages of a book as I did with yours. Maybe I'll return to this story in twenty years or so, and hopefully then I'll read this under better circumstances. Again, it's really not your fault.

Except the misogyny. That is 100% your fault, you smug self-satisfied patronizing jackass. ]]> 3.81 1934 Tender Is the Night
author: F. Scott Fitzgerald
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.81
book published: 1934
rating: 1
read at: 2011/08/01
date added: 2011/08/10
shelves: the-list, ugh
review:
To be fair, this really wasn't Fitzgerald's fault.

I love The Great Gatsby and I love The Beautiful and the Damned. And, as my dedication to The List proves, I love reading about rich white people and their Rich White People Problems. But everything about this book rubbed me the wrong way, for the following reasons (none of which, as I said, are Fitzgerald's fault. Well, maybe the last one.):

I first started this as an audiobook, which is a medium that I'm trying to get into thanks to my 40-minute commute to work. The problem is, it might be time to admit that I'm just bad at audiobooks. When the words aren't printed on the page in front of me, my mind tends to wander and suddenly I realize that the narrator is still talking and I haven't been paying attention for the past five minutes and am totally lost. This is a problem, particularly with this book, when you really have to pay attention to every word. But all of that wouldn't be so bad, except for the fact that...

This particular recorded version sucked. First, I was completely misled about the plot because the synopsis on the audiobook made it sound like Rosemary was the protagonist, so once I got to Book Two and the narrator kept talking about Nicole I didn't understand what was happening. Also, the particular narrator for this audiobook was awful. His voices were just bad: grating and stupid, and I couldn't understand why he made all the characters sound so plummy and old. Everyone in this book sounded like they were sixty, which is simply wrong.

After soldiering on to about the 3/4 point, I admitted defeat and found a print copy of the book at the library and started reading where the audiobook had left off. I was spared the annoying narration, and by this point had figured out who the protagonists really were, but I still hated the book. And here's why:

I don't care about these characters. Usually I can find some sympathy for Fitzgerald's fascinating and damaged people, but not here. It was probably a result of my bad experience with the audiobook for the majority of the story, but for whatever reason I could not muster so much as an ounce of sympathy or appreciation for these selfish, stupid, rich jerks who can't seem to pull their heads out of their asses long enough to realize how thoroughly they've fucked up their lives. I found myself wishing that all the characters would get shipped to the Congo so they could learn what real suffering looks like, and then I knew that the book could never be redeemed in my eyes.

I'm sorry, Scott. I think you're a genius, I really do, but I have never struggled so much to get through the final twenty pages of a book as I did with yours. Maybe I'll return to this story in twenty years or so, and hopefully then I'll read this under better circumstances. Again, it's really not your fault.

Except the misogyny. That is 100% your fault, you smug self-satisfied patronizing jackass.
]]> American Psycho 28676 American Psycho is a bleak, bitter, black comedy about a world we all recognize but do not wish to confront.]]> 399 Bret Easton Ellis 0679735771 Madeline 3 the-list, ugh I simply am not there. It is hard for me to make sense on any given level. Myself is fabricated, an aberration. I am a noncontingent human being. My personality is sketchy and unformed, my heartlessness goes deep and is persistent. My conscience, my pity, my hopes disappeared a long time ago (probably at Harvard) if they ever did exist. There are no more barriers to cross. All I have in common with the uncontrollable and the insane, the vicious and the evil, all the mayhem I have caused and my utter indifference toward it, I have now surpassed. I still, though, hold on to one single bleak truth: no one is safe, nothing is redeemed. ...There has been no reason for me to tell you any of this. This confession has meant nothing."

Normally my "ugh" shelf is reserved for books I disliked strongly, which isn't really true of American Psycho. I didn't hate it, but come on: it's a book where an author uses a stand-in character to gleefully explore every dark and misogynist impulse he's ever had and pretend he's making some kind of social statement. How else can you describe a book like that except, "ugh"?

Not that it's bad, exactly. The first hundred pages, in fact, are pretty damn impressive. It's one of those books that I wish I'd started without knowing anything about the plot, because the way Ellis gradually reveals Bateman's psychotic nature is very well done. The first few chapters are basically Gossip Girl: we watch a lot of rich white people doing rich white people things, and our narrator makes sure we know what everyone's wearing and how rich they really are. Bateman even seems, at first, like kind of a good guy: he's reasonably pleasant, if snobbish, and early on we see him chide his friends for making racist jokes. But there are hints, little signs, that something is very, very wrong with Patrick Bateman, and the way Ellis builds the suspense to the moment where we actually see him attack and murder a homeless man is almost masterful. He prolongs the tension, not letting us actually witness Bateman's true skill - torturing and murdering women - until almost halfway through the book. And the writing is impressive, clearly showing us the state of Bateman's twisted and muddled mind, with events out of sequence and scenes that start mid-sentence, as if the narrator has blacked out. Because of this, the first half of the book is fascinating, and worth the truly horrific descriptions of rape and violence and ugly sex.

But then it all goes down the toilet as the story commits the worst sin a book like this can commit: it gets boring.

Once we've seen Bateman murder a woman (slowly, horribly, with Ellis not sparing us a single detail thank you very much for that, you sick fucker) there's nowhere left for the story to go. Sure, Ellis can create new, more terrible ways for a woman to slowly die (and oh, he does) but it's all just the same stuff over and over. There are hints of actual plots starting, like when a detective shows up to interview Bateman about a missing man (who Bateman has murdered), but these go nowhere. Even when cops actually almost catch him, once the scene is over we never hear about it again. Once Ellis plays his biggest card, there's nothing left to hold our attention and he becomes a deranged child, showing us what he just dug out of his nose in an attempt to get us to react with disgust and validate his existence.

This didn't need to be an entire novel. 399 pages is far too long to devote to what is, essentially, a particularly sick snuff film. Short story-length, maybe even novella-length, would have been more than sufficient space for Ellis to deliver his message - whatever it's supposed to be. ]]> 3.82 1991 American Psycho
author: Bret Easton Ellis
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.82
book published: 1991
rating: 3
read at: 2011/07/01
date added: 2011/07/12
shelves: the-list, ugh
review:
"...there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I simply am not there. It is hard for me to make sense on any given level. Myself is fabricated, an aberration. I am a noncontingent human being. My personality is sketchy and unformed, my heartlessness goes deep and is persistent. My conscience, my pity, my hopes disappeared a long time ago (probably at Harvard) if they ever did exist. There are no more barriers to cross. All I have in common with the uncontrollable and the insane, the vicious and the evil, all the mayhem I have caused and my utter indifference toward it, I have now surpassed. I still, though, hold on to one single bleak truth: no one is safe, nothing is redeemed. ...There has been no reason for me to tell you any of this. This confession has meant nothing."

Normally my "ugh" shelf is reserved for books I disliked strongly, which isn't really true of American Psycho. I didn't hate it, but come on: it's a book where an author uses a stand-in character to gleefully explore every dark and misogynist impulse he's ever had and pretend he's making some kind of social statement. How else can you describe a book like that except, "ugh"?

Not that it's bad, exactly. The first hundred pages, in fact, are pretty damn impressive. It's one of those books that I wish I'd started without knowing anything about the plot, because the way Ellis gradually reveals Bateman's psychotic nature is very well done. The first few chapters are basically Gossip Girl: we watch a lot of rich white people doing rich white people things, and our narrator makes sure we know what everyone's wearing and how rich they really are. Bateman even seems, at first, like kind of a good guy: he's reasonably pleasant, if snobbish, and early on we see him chide his friends for making racist jokes. But there are hints, little signs, that something is very, very wrong with Patrick Bateman, and the way Ellis builds the suspense to the moment where we actually see him attack and murder a homeless man is almost masterful. He prolongs the tension, not letting us actually witness Bateman's true skill - torturing and murdering women - until almost halfway through the book. And the writing is impressive, clearly showing us the state of Bateman's twisted and muddled mind, with events out of sequence and scenes that start mid-sentence, as if the narrator has blacked out. Because of this, the first half of the book is fascinating, and worth the truly horrific descriptions of rape and violence and ugly sex.

But then it all goes down the toilet as the story commits the worst sin a book like this can commit: it gets boring.

Once we've seen Bateman murder a woman (slowly, horribly, with Ellis not sparing us a single detail thank you very much for that, you sick fucker) there's nowhere left for the story to go. Sure, Ellis can create new, more terrible ways for a woman to slowly die (and oh, he does) but it's all just the same stuff over and over. There are hints of actual plots starting, like when a detective shows up to interview Bateman about a missing man (who Bateman has murdered), but these go nowhere. Even when cops actually almost catch him, once the scene is over we never hear about it again. Once Ellis plays his biggest card, there's nothing left to hold our attention and he becomes a deranged child, showing us what he just dug out of his nose in an attempt to get us to react with disgust and validate his existence.

This didn't need to be an entire novel. 399 pages is far too long to devote to what is, essentially, a particularly sick snuff film. Short story-length, maybe even novella-length, would have been more than sufficient space for Ellis to deliver his message - whatever it's supposed to be.
]]> The Trial 17690 The Trial is the terrifying tale of Josef K., a respectable bank officer who is suddenly and inexplicably arrested and must defend himself against a charge about which he can get no information. Whether read as an existential tale, a parable, or a prophecy of the excesses of modern bureaucracy wedded to the madness of totalitarianism, The Trial has resonated with chilling truth for generations of readers.]]> 255 Franz Kafka Madeline 1 ugh, the-list 4.00 1925 The Trial
author: Franz Kafka
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.00
book published: 1925
rating: 1
read at: 2011/07/01
date added: 2011/07/07
shelves: ugh, the-list
review:
God, I fucking hate allegories.
]]> A Room with a View 3087
Lucy has her rigid, middle-class life mapped out for her, until she visits Florence with her uptight cousin Charlotte, and finds her neatly ordered existence thrown off balance. Her eyes are opened by the unconventional characters she meets at the Pension Bertolini: flamboyant romantic novelist Eleanor Lavish, the Cockney Signora, curious Mr Emerson and, most of all, his passionate son George.

Lucy finds herself torn between the intensity of life in Italy and the repressed morals of Edwardian England, personified in her terminally dull fiancé Cecil Vyse. Will she ever learn to follow her own heart?]]> 119 E.M. Forster 1420925431 Madeline 3 the-list
Unless this is the early 1900's and you're visiting the city with your annoying spinster cousin, then you kiss some boy in a field of violets for like two seconds and nobody ever lets you forget it. Jeez, people.

This is a brief, sweet little novel about Lucy Honeychurch (winner of the prestigious award for Most Adorable Name Ever), who goes to Florence with previously-mentioned spinster cousin. Despite lack of A ROOM WITH A VIEW, Lucy has a very nice time, sees some artwork, does some self-discovery, and smooches a very unsuitable boy (escandalo!) who might be a Socialist (double escandalo!). Then they go back to England and she gets engaged to a schmuck.

For this part of the novel, I was mostly coasting along, having a reasonably good time reading about well-off English people and their Well-Off English People Problems ("Our Italian pension is owned by a Cockney lady! So-and-so isn't the right kind of blandly religious! And for the love of God WHO WILL YOU MARRY?!"). It was mildly entertaining, and I was a huge fan of Mr. Emerson from the get-go. George, sadly, never quite did it for me, and Lucy I found to be kind of boring until, UNTIL, the glorious moment when she breaks up with her lame fiance and gets awesome. Here's part of her breakup speech:

"When we were only acquaintances, you let me be myself, but now you're always protecting me...I won't be protected. I will choose for myself what is ladylike and right. To shield me is an insult. Can't I be trusted to face the truth but I must get it second-hand through you? ...you wrap yourself up in art and books and music, and would try to wrap up me. I won't be stifled, not by the most glorious music, for people are more glorious, and you hide them from me. That's why I break off my engagement."

Bella Swan, are you paying attention? Because this concerns you.

After that moment, I was suddenly 100% invested in Lucy and her attempts to figure herself out. Maybe I imagined it, but it seemed like the writing became so much more beautiful after that, and I was reading the story more carefully and with more interest than I had before. It was a slow start, but Forster's fantastic characters managed to win me over in the end (yes, even the annoying spinster cousin).]]> 3.92 1908 A Room with a View
author: E.M. Forster
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.92
book published: 1908
rating: 3
read at: 2011/07/01
date added: 2011/07/07
shelves: the-list
review:
What happens in Florence, stays in Florence.

Unless this is the early 1900's and you're visiting the city with your annoying spinster cousin, then you kiss some boy in a field of violets for like two seconds and nobody ever lets you forget it. Jeez, people.

This is a brief, sweet little novel about Lucy Honeychurch (winner of the prestigious award for Most Adorable Name Ever), who goes to Florence with previously-mentioned spinster cousin. Despite lack of A ROOM WITH A VIEW, Lucy has a very nice time, sees some artwork, does some self-discovery, and smooches a very unsuitable boy (escandalo!) who might be a Socialist (double escandalo!). Then they go back to England and she gets engaged to a schmuck.

For this part of the novel, I was mostly coasting along, having a reasonably good time reading about well-off English people and their Well-Off English People Problems ("Our Italian pension is owned by a Cockney lady! So-and-so isn't the right kind of blandly religious! And for the love of God WHO WILL YOU MARRY?!"). It was mildly entertaining, and I was a huge fan of Mr. Emerson from the get-go. George, sadly, never quite did it for me, and Lucy I found to be kind of boring until, UNTIL, the glorious moment when she breaks up with her lame fiance and gets awesome. Here's part of her breakup speech:

"When we were only acquaintances, you let me be myself, but now you're always protecting me...I won't be protected. I will choose for myself what is ladylike and right. To shield me is an insult. Can't I be trusted to face the truth but I must get it second-hand through you? ...you wrap yourself up in art and books and music, and would try to wrap up me. I won't be stifled, not by the most glorious music, for people are more glorious, and you hide them from me. That's why I break off my engagement."

Bella Swan, are you paying attention? Because this concerns you.

After that moment, I was suddenly 100% invested in Lucy and her attempts to figure herself out. Maybe I imagined it, but it seemed like the writing became so much more beautiful after that, and I was reading the story more carefully and with more interest than I had before. It was a slow start, but Forster's fantastic characters managed to win me over in the end (yes, even the annoying spinster cousin).
]]> Señor Vivo and the Coca Lord 3398 The War of Don Emmanuel's Nether Parts, a South American country of resplendent eccentricity, gargantuan corruption, and terrifying violence, where the ordinary machinery of government has rusted and the only thing that works is magic.]]> 352 Louis de Bernières 0375700145 Madeline 5 the-list
Amazingly, these two very different elements combine to make a fantastic story. It doesn't seem like it would work - how can an author make a statement about the realistically awful cocaine trade and its effects, while also incorporating magical elements that distract from the reality of the situation? Because, lest you be fooled, this is not a light and happy story. People are murdered, raped, and tortured in excruciating detail, and for the majority of the book we're sure that the actions of one man Senor Vivo, cannot possibly overcome the cocaine industry in South America.

It wouldn't seem like magic belongs in that story, but it does. The cocaine trade ruins lives, and the people behind it are ruthless, stupid, horrible thugs who nonetheless can control entire countries. The situation is depressing, to say the least, and that's why the magical realism aspect is so important to this novel. When we read about Senor Vivo, who writes passionate letters to the newspapers condemning the cocaine dealers, who respond by leaving raped and mutilated children in his backyard, we need to know that nearby, in a small village on the Amazon, witches are working to bring down the cocaine dealers. We need to know that one man can have enough luck to escape multiple assassination attempts. We need to believe that in this world of violence and destruction and inhumanity, miracles are possible and that the good guys will win in the end. Here, reality is not enough, so the author gives us something better. He gives us a world where good can triumph over evil, and even though the journey is horrible and painful and people die and no one will ever be the same afterwards, the good people can still win.

Also the protagonist has two pet panthers, which is just plain awesome. ]]> 4.12 1991 Señor Vivo and the Coca Lord
author: Louis de Bernières
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.12
book published: 1991
rating: 5
read at: 2011/06/01
date added: 2011/07/05
shelves: the-list
review:
This book is hard to explain. On one hand, it's a genuinely passionate statement about how the cocaine trade has crippled South America and everyone is too afraid to go against the cartels; on the other hand, it's a magical realism story where human women can give birth to cats, gods posses people, and panthers can be domesticated.

Amazingly, these two very different elements combine to make a fantastic story. It doesn't seem like it would work - how can an author make a statement about the realistically awful cocaine trade and its effects, while also incorporating magical elements that distract from the reality of the situation? Because, lest you be fooled, this is not a light and happy story. People are murdered, raped, and tortured in excruciating detail, and for the majority of the book we're sure that the actions of one man Senor Vivo, cannot possibly overcome the cocaine industry in South America.

It wouldn't seem like magic belongs in that story, but it does. The cocaine trade ruins lives, and the people behind it are ruthless, stupid, horrible thugs who nonetheless can control entire countries. The situation is depressing, to say the least, and that's why the magical realism aspect is so important to this novel. When we read about Senor Vivo, who writes passionate letters to the newspapers condemning the cocaine dealers, who respond by leaving raped and mutilated children in his backyard, we need to know that nearby, in a small village on the Amazon, witches are working to bring down the cocaine dealers. We need to know that one man can have enough luck to escape multiple assassination attempts. We need to believe that in this world of violence and destruction and inhumanity, miracles are possible and that the good guys will win in the end. Here, reality is not enough, so the author gives us something better. He gives us a world where good can triumph over evil, and even though the journey is horrible and painful and people die and no one will ever be the same afterwards, the good people can still win.

Also the protagonist has two pet panthers, which is just plain awesome.
]]> Wise Blood 48467 This is an alternate-cover edition for ISBN 9780374530631)

The American short story master Flannery O'Connor's haunting first novel of faith, false prophets, and redemptive wisdom.

Wise Blood, Flannery O'Connor's astonishing and haunting first novel, is a classic of twentieth-century literature. It is the story of Hazel Motes, a twenty-two-year-old caught in an unending struggle against his inborn, desperate fate. He falls under the spell of a "blind" street preacher named Asa Hawks and his degenerate fifteen-year-old daughter, Sabbath Lily. In an ironic, malicious gesture of his own non-faith, and to prove himself a greater cynic than Hawks, Motes founds the Church Without Christ, but is still thwarted in his efforts to lose God. He meets Enoch Emery, a young man with "wise blood," who leads him to a mummified holy child and whose crazy maneuvers are a manifestation of Motes's existential struggles.

This tale of redemption, retribution, false prophets, blindness, blindings, and wisdom gives us one of the most riveting characters in American fiction.]]> 256 Flannery O'Connor 0374530637 Madeline 2 the-list, ugh
see more

Sorry, Ms. O'Connor. We'll try again in a few years. ]]> 3.84 1952 Wise Blood
author: Flannery O'Connor
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.84
book published: 1952
rating: 2
read at: 2011/06/01
date added: 2011/06/02
shelves: the-list, ugh
review:
So there's these two guys, and they're both absolutely nuts, and one starts a weird church and the other one is looking for New Jesus and there's sex with a minor and in the end there's lots of gross stuff for some reason and...um...

see more

Sorry, Ms. O'Connor. We'll try again in a few years.
]]> Don Quixote 3836
With its experimental form and literary playfulness, Don Quixote has been generally recognized as the first modern novel. The book has been enormously influential on a host of writers, from Fielding and Sterne to Flaubert, Dickens, Melville, and Faulkner, who reread it once a year, "just as some people read the Bible."]]> 1023 Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra Madeline 3 the-list, historic-fiction felt like the longest book I've ever read. The problem is not the length - the problem is that until the last 150-some pages, there is no continuous plot to keep you invested in the story. Everybody knows that this is the story of a crazy guy who decides to be a knight one day, and he and his squire go on crazy adventures together and hilarity and tilting at windmills ensues. What people might not know, however, is that there's no overarching quest, no ultimate goal. This book is over 1,000 pages of, "Don Quixote did this. And then he did this. And then he went here and this happened. And then this person told a story. And then they did this." On and on and on, it's just dumb adventure after dumb adventure, and they're literally interchangeable - the timeline of the story doesn't matter at all.

Not that the stories are bad, necessarily. Sure, some of them are stupid and pointless (and involving humor based on someone barfing or pooping), and they tend to repeat themselves (oh hey look, another hot Middle Eastern chick who we only like because she converted to Christianity), but they're usually funny, at least. But without an overall plot linking the stories together or giving them some significance, nothing really matters. (speaking of which, did anybody see Sucker Punch? Holy mother of God.)

Throughout the whole book, nobody ever learns anything or changes or even bothers to sit Don Quixote down and have a serious conversation about why he wants so badly to disappear into this fantasy life he's created for himself. Ultimately, this is nothing more than a collection of funny anecdotes, with some scatological humor and attempted swashbuckling thrown in.

I said that nobody learns anything in the book, but that's not technically true. When Don Quixote finally comes home after all his adventures, he gets sick and is dying. It's at this point that he has a revelation - that he was deluding himself with his dream of being a knight-errant, and that it was all pointless and stupid. Fine, but then he takes it a step further. He decides that all the adventure books he read are the only thing to blame for this obsession, and that they should be wiped from the face of the earth so no one else can be decieved by them. He even writes his will to include the rule that if his niece wants to get married after his death, the guy had better not have read even a single knight-errantry book, or she doesn't get her inheritence.

I don't know what we're supposed to take away from that. An adventure book that ends with the hero deciding that adventure books are evil and ruin people's lives? What the hell, Cervantes?]]> 3.86 1615 Don Quixote
author: Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.86
book published: 1615
rating: 3
read at: 2011/04/01
date added: 2011/04/23
shelves: the-list, historic-fiction
review:
This was not the longest book I've ever read (close, though). However, it certainly felt like the longest book I've ever read. The problem is not the length - the problem is that until the last 150-some pages, there is no continuous plot to keep you invested in the story. Everybody knows that this is the story of a crazy guy who decides to be a knight one day, and he and his squire go on crazy adventures together and hilarity and tilting at windmills ensues. What people might not know, however, is that there's no overarching quest, no ultimate goal. This book is over 1,000 pages of, "Don Quixote did this. And then he did this. And then he went here and this happened. And then this person told a story. And then they did this." On and on and on, it's just dumb adventure after dumb adventure, and they're literally interchangeable - the timeline of the story doesn't matter at all.

Not that the stories are bad, necessarily. Sure, some of them are stupid and pointless (and involving humor based on someone barfing or pooping), and they tend to repeat themselves (oh hey look, another hot Middle Eastern chick who we only like because she converted to Christianity), but they're usually funny, at least. But without an overall plot linking the stories together or giving them some significance, nothing really matters. (speaking of which, did anybody see Sucker Punch? Holy mother of God.)

Throughout the whole book, nobody ever learns anything or changes or even bothers to sit Don Quixote down and have a serious conversation about why he wants so badly to disappear into this fantasy life he's created for himself. Ultimately, this is nothing more than a collection of funny anecdotes, with some scatological humor and attempted swashbuckling thrown in.

I said that nobody learns anything in the book, but that's not technically true. When Don Quixote finally comes home after all his adventures, he gets sick and is dying. It's at this point that he has a revelation - that he was deluding himself with his dream of being a knight-errant, and that it was all pointless and stupid. Fine, but then he takes it a step further. He decides that all the adventure books he read are the only thing to blame for this obsession, and that they should be wiped from the face of the earth so no one else can be decieved by them. He even writes his will to include the rule that if his niece wants to get married after his death, the guy had better not have read even a single knight-errantry book, or she doesn't get her inheritence.

I don't know what we're supposed to take away from that. An adventure book that ends with the hero deciding that adventure books are evil and ruin people's lives? What the hell, Cervantes?
]]> Gulliver’s Travels 7733 A wickedly clever satire uses comic inversions to offer telling insights into the nature of man and society. Nominated as one of America’s best-loved novels by PBS’s The Great American Read.

Gulliver's Travels describes the four voyages of Lemuel Gulliver, a ship's surgeon. In Lilliput he discovers a world in miniature; towering over the people and their city, he is able to view their society from the viewpoint of a god. However, in Brobdingnag, a land of giants, tiny Gulliver himself comes under observation, exhibited as a curiosity at markets and fairs. In Laputa, a flying island, he encounters a society of speculators and projectors who have lost all grip on everyday reality; while they plan and calculate, their country lies in ruins. Gulliver's final voyage takes him to the land of the Houyhnhnms, gentle horses whom he quickly comes to admire - in contrast to the Yahoos, filthy bestial creatures who bear a disturbing resemblance to humans. This text, based on the first edition of 1726, reproduces all the original illustrations and includes an introduction by Robert Demaria, Jr, which discusses the ways Gulliver's Travels has been interpreted since its first publication. Jonathan Swift (1667-1745) was born in Dublin.

For more than seventy years, Penguin has been the leading publisher of classic literature in the English-speaking world. With more than 1,700 titles, Penguin Classics represents a global bookshelf of the best works throughout history and across genres and disciplines. Readers trust the series to provide authoritative texts enhanced by introductions and notes by distinguished scholars and contemporary authors, as well as up-to-date translations by award-winning translators.]]> 306 Jonathan Swift 0141439491 Madeline 4 assigned-reading, the-list Robinson Crusoe, which, I think, was a perfect decision on my professor's part. In addition to making bold statements about colonialism and slavery, satirizing the hell out of European government and rulers and scientists and just about everything else, Swift is using Gulliver's Travels to write the longest, best parody of Robinson Crusoe ever. He takes Defoe's long-winded, preachy, boring survival story with racist and imperialist overtones, and turned it into a fun adventure story that never misses an opportunity to mock the exploration-story genre or break out some inappropriate jokes (don't worry, I'll get to those.)

The book is divided into four parts, each describing Gulliver's adventures in a different undiscovered part of the world. Part I is Lilliput, which everyone knows about already; Part II is Brobdingnag, where everyone is much bigger than Gulliver (in contrast to Lilliput); Part III is Laputa and some other stuff (it's the worst of the bunch, and reads like it was dashed off at the last minute and shoved in to round out the page count); and Part IV was my favorite, mostly because Gulliver goes to an island inhabited by super-intelligent horses. (10-year-old Madeline: Squeeeee! Talking horses!) It's all funny and exciting (except for previously-mentioned Part III, which is a total slog), but it does have some boring parts. For instance, every time Gulliver is on a ship he has to tell us the exact details of the voyage and dump a bunch of nautical terms on us, and he likes describing things in step-by-step detail. But that's the great thing: by doing this, he's satirizing Daniel Defoe and his boring book about some jackass getting stranded on an island. There are tons of digs at Robinson Crusoe, and my favorite has to be when Gulliver is describing one of his meals on an island and then says, "This is enough to say upon the subject of my diet, wherewith other travellers fill their books, as if the readers were personally concerned whether we fared well or ill." Cue everyone who had to sit through pages of Crusoe's food descriptions breathing a huge sigh of relief.

As I mentioned, Swift is also having fun sticking in some dirty jokes. Right off the bat, when Gulliver is describing his life pre-voyage, he mentions being apprenticed to a man named Bates. We think it's a pointless detail, but then Gulliver refers to him, just once, as Master Bates. My professor assured us that this was very intentional.

The best one was on Lilliput, when the king asked Gulliver to stand with his legs apart so the Lillputian army could ride underneath him like a bridge: "His Majesty gave orders, upon pain of death, that every soldier in his march should observe the strictest decency with regard to my person; which, however, could not prevent some of the younger officers from turning up their eyes as they passed under me. And, to confess the truth, my breeches were at that time in so ill a condition, that they afforded some opportunities for laughter and admiration."

There you have it, folks. This may be the only book on the list of 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die that features the narrator pausing to inform us how absolutely colossal his penis is.

Read for: Colonial Imagination]]> 3.59 1726 Gulliver’s Travels
author: Jonathan Swift
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.59
book published: 1726
rating: 4
read at: 2011/04/01
date added: 2011/04/06
shelves: assigned-reading, the-list
review:
My class read this right after finishing Robinson Crusoe, which, I think, was a perfect decision on my professor's part. In addition to making bold statements about colonialism and slavery, satirizing the hell out of European government and rulers and scientists and just about everything else, Swift is using Gulliver's Travels to write the longest, best parody of Robinson Crusoe ever. He takes Defoe's long-winded, preachy, boring survival story with racist and imperialist overtones, and turned it into a fun adventure story that never misses an opportunity to mock the exploration-story genre or break out some inappropriate jokes (don't worry, I'll get to those.)

The book is divided into four parts, each describing Gulliver's adventures in a different undiscovered part of the world. Part I is Lilliput, which everyone knows about already; Part II is Brobdingnag, where everyone is much bigger than Gulliver (in contrast to Lilliput); Part III is Laputa and some other stuff (it's the worst of the bunch, and reads like it was dashed off at the last minute and shoved in to round out the page count); and Part IV was my favorite, mostly because Gulliver goes to an island inhabited by super-intelligent horses. (10-year-old Madeline: Squeeeee! Talking horses!) It's all funny and exciting (except for previously-mentioned Part III, which is a total slog), but it does have some boring parts. For instance, every time Gulliver is on a ship he has to tell us the exact details of the voyage and dump a bunch of nautical terms on us, and he likes describing things in step-by-step detail. But that's the great thing: by doing this, he's satirizing Daniel Defoe and his boring book about some jackass getting stranded on an island. There are tons of digs at Robinson Crusoe, and my favorite has to be when Gulliver is describing one of his meals on an island and then says, "This is enough to say upon the subject of my diet, wherewith other travellers fill their books, as if the readers were personally concerned whether we fared well or ill." Cue everyone who had to sit through pages of Crusoe's food descriptions breathing a huge sigh of relief.

As I mentioned, Swift is also having fun sticking in some dirty jokes. Right off the bat, when Gulliver is describing his life pre-voyage, he mentions being apprenticed to a man named Bates. We think it's a pointless detail, but then Gulliver refers to him, just once, as Master Bates. My professor assured us that this was very intentional.

The best one was on Lilliput, when the king asked Gulliver to stand with his legs apart so the Lillputian army could ride underneath him like a bridge: "His Majesty gave orders, upon pain of death, that every soldier in his march should observe the strictest decency with regard to my person; which, however, could not prevent some of the younger officers from turning up their eyes as they passed under me. And, to confess the truth, my breeches were at that time in so ill a condition, that they afforded some opportunities for laughter and admiration."

There you have it, folks. This may be the only book on the list of 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die that features the narrator pausing to inform us how absolutely colossal his penis is.

Read for: Colonial Imagination
]]> The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie 517188 150 Muriel Spark 0060931736 Madeline 4 the-list
Six girls at a Scottish school in the 1930's form "the Brodie set", the group of favorites specifically chosen by the most interesting teacher at their school. Miss Brodie is charming, well-traveled, literate, passionate, and has an opinion on everything. The girls who form her set spend their time, from ages ten to eighteen, idolizing Miss Brodie and being influenced by her in almost every way. But all of these girls will go on to live very different lives, and one of them will betray Miss Brodie. The book follows their school careers, from ages ten onward, and shows us how one of those girls came to admire, love, and then betray her teacher. It's also an amazing character study thanks to Miss Brodie, an endlessly fascinating figure. She's funny and brilliant, but she's also manipulative and foolish. Also she's a fascist. Like, literally a fascist - she gives her girls lots of speeches about how Mussolini is improving Italy, and convinces one girl to run away to Spain to fight for Franco.

I liked this book a lot more than I expected it to - although, who doesn't love vicious backstabbing schoolgirls? Reading this book, I could see it's influence reaching all the way to modern times. It reminded me of, among other things, The Secret History, The Lake of Dead Languages, most of Margaret Atwood's books, A Great and Terrible Beauty...the list goes on. The book is about more than just a bunch of schoolgirls growing up. It's about passion, and friendship (superficial and otherwise), the disappointment of seeing your idols as mere human beings, and the constant need to belong.

"It occured to Sandy...that the Brodie set was Miss Brodie's fascisti, not to the naked eye, marching along, but all knit together for her need and in another way, marching along. That was all right, but it seemed, too, that Miss Brodie's disapproval of the Girl Guides had jealousy in it, there was an inconsistency, a fault. Perhaps the Guides were too much a rival fascisti, and Miss Brodie could not bear it. Sandy thought she might see about joining the Brownies. Then the group-fright seized her again, and it was necessary to put the idea aside, because she loved Miss Brodie."

As an ending note, has anyone seen that movie Cracks that came out recently? I need some more vicious schoolgirl antics in my life, and I was wondering if it was worth seeing. Thoughts? ]]> 3.73 1961 The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie
author: Muriel Spark
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.73
book published: 1961
rating: 4
read at: 2011/03/01
date added: 2011/03/22
shelves: the-list
review:
"Miss Brodie's special girls were taken home to tea and bidden not to tell the others, they understood her private life and her feud with the headmistresss. They learned what troubles in her career Miss Brodie encountered on their behalf. 'It is for the sake of you girls - my influence, now, in the years of my prime.' This was the beginning of the Brodie set."

Six girls at a Scottish school in the 1930's form "the Brodie set", the group of favorites specifically chosen by the most interesting teacher at their school. Miss Brodie is charming, well-traveled, literate, passionate, and has an opinion on everything. The girls who form her set spend their time, from ages ten to eighteen, idolizing Miss Brodie and being influenced by her in almost every way. But all of these girls will go on to live very different lives, and one of them will betray Miss Brodie. The book follows their school careers, from ages ten onward, and shows us how one of those girls came to admire, love, and then betray her teacher. It's also an amazing character study thanks to Miss Brodie, an endlessly fascinating figure. She's funny and brilliant, but she's also manipulative and foolish. Also she's a fascist. Like, literally a fascist - she gives her girls lots of speeches about how Mussolini is improving Italy, and convinces one girl to run away to Spain to fight for Franco.

I liked this book a lot more than I expected it to - although, who doesn't love vicious backstabbing schoolgirls? Reading this book, I could see it's influence reaching all the way to modern times. It reminded me of, among other things, The Secret History, The Lake of Dead Languages, most of Margaret Atwood's books, A Great and Terrible Beauty...the list goes on. The book is about more than just a bunch of schoolgirls growing up. It's about passion, and friendship (superficial and otherwise), the disappointment of seeing your idols as mere human beings, and the constant need to belong.

"It occured to Sandy...that the Brodie set was Miss Brodie's fascisti, not to the naked eye, marching along, but all knit together for her need and in another way, marching along. That was all right, but it seemed, too, that Miss Brodie's disapproval of the Girl Guides had jealousy in it, there was an inconsistency, a fault. Perhaps the Guides were too much a rival fascisti, and Miss Brodie could not bear it. Sandy thought she might see about joining the Brownies. Then the group-fright seized her again, and it was necessary to put the idea aside, because she loved Miss Brodie."

As an ending note, has anyone seen that movie Cracks that came out recently? I need some more vicious schoolgirl antics in my life, and I was wondering if it was worth seeing. Thoughts?
]]> Robinson Crusoe 2932 320 Daniel Defoe Madeline 3 the-list, assigned-reading
UPDATE: Thanks to my literature class, I have now read the entire novel, for real. Verdict? Still three stars, although that's a generous rating. The story is actually interesting, because who doesn't enjoy a good survival story - although the Ĺ·±¦ÓéŔÖ-provided plot description is misleading, because it says that Crusoe is shipwrecked and "forced to make do with only a knife, some tobacco, and a pipe." Uh, actually that's the opposite of true. Crusoe is shipwrecked, yes, but the whole damn ship is floating just offshore after the storm, so intact that two cats and a dog who had been onboard during the storm are still alive when Crusoe swims out there to take all the supplies. That was mainly what surprised me while I was reading this for real: how damn easy it was for Crusoe to survive. He had an entire ship full of supplies, fresh water, wild goats to domesticate, three shelters, and the cannibals didn't even come to his side of the island!

It's still colonial as all get out, what with the whole Friday thing and Crusoe's attitude towards the natives who occasionally trespass on "his" island (but to be fair, he also hates Spaniards, because they're Catholic.) So, I guess I was glad I finally read this, although I have absolutely no interest in reading it ever again.

Read for: Colonial Imagination]]> 3.69 1719 Robinson Crusoe
author: Daniel Defoe
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.69
book published: 1719
rating: 3
read at: 1998/01/01
date added: 2011/03/08
shelves: the-list, assigned-reading
review:
Okay, I'm counting this as "read", but if we're going to be technical I didn't actually read this. The version I read, years and years ago, was one of those condensed "illustrated classics" books aimed at ten-year-olds. I maintain that it was still an actual novel, since it was over two hundred pages (it had lots of illustrations but shut up) and I'm pretty sure all the major stuff from the real book was covered. In any case, I have decided to cross this off The List because I still remember most of it and would probably be able to at least pass a test on Defoe's original novel.

UPDATE: Thanks to my literature class, I have now read the entire novel, for real. Verdict? Still three stars, although that's a generous rating. The story is actually interesting, because who doesn't enjoy a good survival story - although the Ĺ·±¦ÓéŔÖ-provided plot description is misleading, because it says that Crusoe is shipwrecked and "forced to make do with only a knife, some tobacco, and a pipe." Uh, actually that's the opposite of true. Crusoe is shipwrecked, yes, but the whole damn ship is floating just offshore after the storm, so intact that two cats and a dog who had been onboard during the storm are still alive when Crusoe swims out there to take all the supplies. That was mainly what surprised me while I was reading this for real: how damn easy it was for Crusoe to survive. He had an entire ship full of supplies, fresh water, wild goats to domesticate, three shelters, and the cannibals didn't even come to his side of the island!

It's still colonial as all get out, what with the whole Friday thing and Crusoe's attitude towards the natives who occasionally trespass on "his" island (but to be fair, he also hates Spaniards, because they're Catholic.) So, I guess I was glad I finally read this, although I have absolutely no interest in reading it ever again.

Read for: Colonial Imagination
]]> The Things They Carried 133518
The Things They Carried depicts the men of Alpha Company: Jimmy Cross, Henry Dobbins, Rat Kiley, Mitchell Sanders, Norman Bowker, Kiowa, and the character Tim O’Brien, who has survived his tour in Vietnam to become a father and writer at the age of forty-three.

Taught everywhere—from high school classrooms to graduate seminars in creative writing—it has become required reading for any American and continues to challenge readers in their perceptions of fact and fiction, war and peace, courage and fear and longing. The Things They Carried won France's prestigious Prix du Meilleur Livre Etranger and the Chicago Tribune Heartland Prize; it was also a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Critics Circle Award.]]> 246 Tim O'Brien 0767902890 Madeline 5 the-list, all-time-favorites Good Morning Vietnam and Tropic Thunder and, to a lesser extent, whatever my high school teachers tried to make me remember from history class (thanks to my long-standing obsession with all things Tudor, I have a bad habit of just not giving a damn when it comes to American history). I do not particularly enjoy Apocalypse Now, or Vietnam movies in general. If we're being totally honest, the Vietnam War/Conflict/Clusterfuck has never really held my attention for very long.

So it's a testament to Tim O'Brien's crazy talent as a writer that I found his book, which is all about Vietnam and the people who lived (or in some cases, didn't) through it, absolutely fascinating and one of the most beautifully written things I've ever read. I had read a few stories from this book before, for various English classes over the years, but I had never read the entire work.

One of the things I loved most about this book was actually the structure, and the way O'Brien plays with our perceptions of fiction vs. fact. This book is fiction, that's made very clear. But the narrator is named Tim O'Brien, and because of this it's often very hard to remember that this isn't actually a memoir. O'Brien knows this, and knows that our impulse is to accept everything in this book as fact, or based closely on fact, and it's interesting that he waits until more than halfway through the story to correct us:

"It's time to be blunt.
I'm forty-three years old, true, and I'm a writer now, and a long time ago I walked through Quang Ngai Province as a foot soldier.
Almost everything else is invented.
But it's not a game. It's a form. Right here, right now, as I invent myself, I'm thinking of all I want to tell you about why this book is written as it is. For instance, I want to tell you this: twenty years ago I watched a man die on a trail near the village of My Khe. I did not kill him. But I was present, you see, and my presence was guilt enough.
...But listen. Even that story is made up.
I want you to feel what I feel. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth."

Here's my theory about this book: it's not actually about the Vietnam War. I mean, that's what O'Brien is telling us about in this story, but I think the book is really about writing, and storytelling. Take that passage I quoted above where he talks about the difference between story-truth and happening-truth. O'Brien is writing stories about Vietnam, but he's using the stories to teach us how to write, and how to tell stories.

"A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue. As a first rule of thumb, therefore, you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil."

Also, just because I really want to quote it and can't fit it into the context of the rest of the review, here's a bonus passage that I found heart-stoppingly beautiful. O'Brien is talking about a girl he knew in elementary school who died when she was nine, and how he would see her in his dreams:

"Once, I remember, we went ice skating late at night, tracing loops and circles under yellow floodlights. Later we sat by a wood stove in the warming house, all alone, and after a while I asked her what it was like to be dead.
...'Well, right now,' she said, 'I'm not dead. But when I am, it's like...I don't know. I guess it's like being inside a book that nobody's reading.'
'A book?' I said.
'An old one. It's up on a library shelf, so you're safe and everything, but the book hasn't been checked out for a long, long time. All you can do it wait. Just hope somebody'll pick it up and start reading.'
Linda smiled at me.
'Anyhow, it's not so bad,' she said. 'I mean, when you're dead, you just have to be yourself.' She stood up and put on her red stocking cap. 'This is stupid. Let's go skate some more.'"]]> 4.14 1990 The Things They Carried
author: Tim O'Brien
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.14
book published: 1990
rating: 5
read at: 2011/02/01
date added: 2011/02/17
shelves: the-list, all-time-favorites
review:
Let's start out with some context: I know very little about the Vietnam War, having been born in the 80's, and most of my information on the conflict comes from painstakingly-researched movies such as Good Morning Vietnam and Tropic Thunder and, to a lesser extent, whatever my high school teachers tried to make me remember from history class (thanks to my long-standing obsession with all things Tudor, I have a bad habit of just not giving a damn when it comes to American history). I do not particularly enjoy Apocalypse Now, or Vietnam movies in general. If we're being totally honest, the Vietnam War/Conflict/Clusterfuck has never really held my attention for very long.

So it's a testament to Tim O'Brien's crazy talent as a writer that I found his book, which is all about Vietnam and the people who lived (or in some cases, didn't) through it, absolutely fascinating and one of the most beautifully written things I've ever read. I had read a few stories from this book before, for various English classes over the years, but I had never read the entire work.

One of the things I loved most about this book was actually the structure, and the way O'Brien plays with our perceptions of fiction vs. fact. This book is fiction, that's made very clear. But the narrator is named Tim O'Brien, and because of this it's often very hard to remember that this isn't actually a memoir. O'Brien knows this, and knows that our impulse is to accept everything in this book as fact, or based closely on fact, and it's interesting that he waits until more than halfway through the story to correct us:

"It's time to be blunt.
I'm forty-three years old, true, and I'm a writer now, and a long time ago I walked through Quang Ngai Province as a foot soldier.
Almost everything else is invented.
But it's not a game. It's a form. Right here, right now, as I invent myself, I'm thinking of all I want to tell you about why this book is written as it is. For instance, I want to tell you this: twenty years ago I watched a man die on a trail near the village of My Khe. I did not kill him. But I was present, you see, and my presence was guilt enough.
...But listen. Even that story is made up.
I want you to feel what I feel. I want you to know why story-truth is truer sometimes than happening-truth."

Here's my theory about this book: it's not actually about the Vietnam War. I mean, that's what O'Brien is telling us about in this story, but I think the book is really about writing, and storytelling. Take that passage I quoted above where he talks about the difference between story-truth and happening-truth. O'Brien is writing stories about Vietnam, but he's using the stories to teach us how to write, and how to tell stories.

"A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie. There is no rectitude whatsoever. There is no virtue. As a first rule of thumb, therefore, you can tell a true war story by its absolute and uncompromising allegiance to obscenity and evil."

Also, just because I really want to quote it and can't fit it into the context of the rest of the review, here's a bonus passage that I found heart-stoppingly beautiful. O'Brien is talking about a girl he knew in elementary school who died when she was nine, and how he would see her in his dreams:

"Once, I remember, we went ice skating late at night, tracing loops and circles under yellow floodlights. Later we sat by a wood stove in the warming house, all alone, and after a while I asked her what it was like to be dead.
...'Well, right now,' she said, 'I'm not dead. But when I am, it's like...I don't know. I guess it's like being inside a book that nobody's reading.'
'A book?' I said.
'An old one. It's up on a library shelf, so you're safe and everything, but the book hasn't been checked out for a long, long time. All you can do it wait. Just hope somebody'll pick it up and start reading.'
Linda smiled at me.
'Anyhow, it's not so bad,' she said. 'I mean, when you're dead, you just have to be yourself.' She stood up and put on her red stocking cap. 'This is stupid. Let's go skate some more.'"
]]> <![CDATA[Oroonoko, The Rover and Other Works]]> 51187
When Prince Oroonoko’s passion for the virtuous Imoinda arouses the jealousy of his grandfather, the lovers are cast into slavery and transported from Africa to the colony of Surinam. Oroonoko’s noble bearing soon wins the respect of his English captors, but his struggle for freedom brings about his destruction. Inspired by Aphra Behn’s visit to Surinam, Oroonoko (1688) reflects the author’s romantic view of Native Americans as simple, superior peoples 'in the first state of innocence, before men knew how to sin�. The novel also reveals Behn’s ambiguous attitude to African slavery � while she favoured it as a means to strengthen England’s power, her powerful and moving work conveys its injustice and brutality.

This new edition of Oroonoko is based on the first printed edition of 1688, and includes a chronology, bibliography and notes. In her introduction, Janet Todd examines Aphra Behn’s views of slavery, colonization and politics, and her position as a professional woman writer in the Restoration.

Prose:
The Fair Jilt
Oroonoko
Love-Letters to a Gentleman

Plays:
The Rover
The Widow Ranter

Poems:
Love Armed
Epilogue to Sir Patient Fancy
The Disappointment
To Mr. Creech (under the name of Daphnis) on his excellent translation of Lucretius
A letter to Mr. Creech at Oxford, written in the last great frost
Song: On her loving two equally
To the fair Clarinda, who made love to me, imagined more than woman
On Desire: A Pindaric
A Pindaric poem to the Reverend Doctor Burnet]]> 400 Aphra Behn 0140433384 Madeline 4 assigned-reading, the-list
"The Fair Jilt" was sort of boring and also irritating, because it's about a woman who falls in love with a monk (who's really a banished prince who got banished because of romantic fuck-ups) and when he rejects her advances she accuses him of raping her. He gets sent to prison to await execution, she goes on with her life, but at least karma comes around and bites her in the ass eventually.

I liked "The Rover" a lot more, and I can't really do it justice except by quoting the plot synopsis on the back of the book: "The Rover centers on the dissolute Cavalier Willmore, and the attempts of two spirited women - Angellica Bianca, a courtesan, and Hellena, a cross-dressing virgin - to woo him."
It reminded me of one of Shakespeare's lighter comedies - romantic shenanigans and cross-dressing aplenty - but more R-rated. There's a courtesan and a prostitute, and not one but two scenes where the heroine almost gets raped. But the whole play is still oddly hilarious, and I wonder what it would look like presented on stage.

Read for: Women in Early British Literature

UPDATE:
Thanks to my Colonial Imagination class, I recently read Oroonoko as well. It's Behn's most famous work, and rightly so. Her story about an African prince who get fucked over by life over and over is sad, beautiful, well-written, and liberally sprinkled with Behn's white privilege perspective. The best example of this is when Oroonoko gets sold into slavery and put on a boat to make the infamous Middle Passage, the route that the slave ships took from Africa to South America. It was a horrendous trip, made under almost unbearable conditions, but Behn merely says that the voyage was "tedious" and skips right ahead to when we land in South America. Whoops. ]]> 3.41 1688 Oroonoko, The Rover and Other Works
author: Aphra Behn
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.41
book published: 1688
rating: 4
read at: 2009/11/01
date added: 2011/01/27
shelves: assigned-reading, the-list
review:
My class didn't actually read this entire work - we read "The Rover" and "The Fair Jilt." (a play and a short story, respectively)

"The Fair Jilt" was sort of boring and also irritating, because it's about a woman who falls in love with a monk (who's really a banished prince who got banished because of romantic fuck-ups) and when he rejects her advances she accuses him of raping her. He gets sent to prison to await execution, she goes on with her life, but at least karma comes around and bites her in the ass eventually.

I liked "The Rover" a lot more, and I can't really do it justice except by quoting the plot synopsis on the back of the book: "The Rover centers on the dissolute Cavalier Willmore, and the attempts of two spirited women - Angellica Bianca, a courtesan, and Hellena, a cross-dressing virgin - to woo him."
It reminded me of one of Shakespeare's lighter comedies - romantic shenanigans and cross-dressing aplenty - but more R-rated. There's a courtesan and a prostitute, and not one but two scenes where the heroine almost gets raped. But the whole play is still oddly hilarious, and I wonder what it would look like presented on stage.

Read for: Women in Early British Literature

UPDATE:
Thanks to my Colonial Imagination class, I recently read Oroonoko as well. It's Behn's most famous work, and rightly so. Her story about an African prince who get fucked over by life over and over is sad, beautiful, well-written, and liberally sprinkled with Behn's white privilege perspective. The best example of this is when Oroonoko gets sold into slavery and put on a boat to make the infamous Middle Passage, the route that the slave ships took from Africa to South America. It was a horrendous trip, made under almost unbearable conditions, but Behn merely says that the voyage was "tedious" and skips right ahead to when we land in South America. Whoops.
]]> Amsterdam 6862 Amsterdam is "a dark tour de force, perfectly fashioned" ( The New York Times ) from the bestselling author of Atonement.

On a chilly February day, two old friends meet in the throng outside a London crematorium to pay their last respects to Molly Lane. Both Clive Linley and Vernon Halliday had been Molly's lovers in the days before they reached their current Clive is Britain's most successful modern composer, and Vernon is a newspaper editor. Gorgeous, feisty Molly had other lovers, too, notably Julian Garmony, Foreign Secretary, a notorious right-winger tipped to be the next prime minister. In the days that follow Molly's funeral, Clive and Vernon will make a pact with consequences that neither could have foreseen�

Don’t miss Ian McEwan’s new novel, Lessons .]]> 208 Ian McEwan 0385494246 Madeline 1 the-list, ugh
Having only read two of his novels so far (this one and Atonement), I obviously can't speak for his entire body of work, but at the moment I am astonished at McEwan's ability to make all female love interests in his stories utterly unappealing. First Cecilia Tallis, now Molly Lane.

At least Molly, for all intents and purposes, does not actually matter in the grand scope of this book. When it starts she's already dead, and her husband and numerous former lovers (the three main ones are a politician, a newspaper editor, and a composer) are gathered at her funeral. The men reminisce about Molly and will continue to do so at random throughout the story, but she is never a real presence in the book - I got the sense that none of these men actually knew her, so the reader doesn't get to either.

Anyway, the shit hits the fan when Molly's husband goes through her stuff and finds some very compromising photos of the previously-mentioned politician, taken by Molly. The husband wants to sell the photos to the newspaper editor, the editor talks it over with the composer, the politician freaks out...blah blah blah.

I had two big problems with this book, which I will try to describe as best I can.

1. I didn't like anyone in this story. Molly wasn't even a person, so she's out, and the two central characters (the composer and the editor) seemed to be competing for the prize of Most Horrible Human Being. It was a tight race, to be sure, but in the end I was forced to give the award to the composer, who witnesses a woman being attacked and walks away from it. Sir, Detectives Stadler and Benson of Law & Order: SVU would like to have a few words with you, and none of them are polite.

2. I still don't know what McEwan was trying to do with this book. Is is supposed to be a nostalgic love story? A political story? A twisted morality tale? At the end, which I guess is supposed to be a very emotionally gripping and powerful scene, just left me confused and annoyed because after all that trouble, I had very little idea of what the whole thing was supposed to be about. What, exactly, was the point? ]]> 3.46 1998 Amsterdam
author: Ian McEwan
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.46
book published: 1998
rating: 1
read at: 2011/01/01
date added: 2011/01/13
shelves: the-list, ugh
review:
The only thing worse than a Manic Pixie Dream Girl is a Manic Pixie Dream girl created by Ian McEwan.

Having only read two of his novels so far (this one and Atonement), I obviously can't speak for his entire body of work, but at the moment I am astonished at McEwan's ability to make all female love interests in his stories utterly unappealing. First Cecilia Tallis, now Molly Lane.

At least Molly, for all intents and purposes, does not actually matter in the grand scope of this book. When it starts she's already dead, and her husband and numerous former lovers (the three main ones are a politician, a newspaper editor, and a composer) are gathered at her funeral. The men reminisce about Molly and will continue to do so at random throughout the story, but she is never a real presence in the book - I got the sense that none of these men actually knew her, so the reader doesn't get to either.

Anyway, the shit hits the fan when Molly's husband goes through her stuff and finds some very compromising photos of the previously-mentioned politician, taken by Molly. The husband wants to sell the photos to the newspaper editor, the editor talks it over with the composer, the politician freaks out...blah blah blah.

I had two big problems with this book, which I will try to describe as best I can.

1. I didn't like anyone in this story. Molly wasn't even a person, so she's out, and the two central characters (the composer and the editor) seemed to be competing for the prize of Most Horrible Human Being. It was a tight race, to be sure, but in the end I was forced to give the award to the composer, who witnesses a woman being attacked and walks away from it. Sir, Detectives Stadler and Benson of Law & Order: SVU would like to have a few words with you, and none of them are polite.

2. I still don't know what McEwan was trying to do with this book. Is is supposed to be a nostalgic love story? A political story? A twisted morality tale? At the end, which I guess is supposed to be a very emotionally gripping and powerful scene, just left me confused and annoyed because after all that trouble, I had very little idea of what the whole thing was supposed to be about. What, exactly, was the point?
]]> The Double 54120

Against his own better judgement, Tertuliano decides to pursue his double. As he establishes the man's identity, what begins as a whimsical story becomes a dark meditation on identity and, perhaps, on the crass assumptions behind cloning - that we are merely our outward appearance rather than the sum of our experiences.]]> 324 José Saramago 0151010404 Madeline 3 the-list
A very interesting premise, written in the overly-analytical and run-on way that Saramago is so fond of: as described above, a history teacher with a funny name watches a video, and to his shock discovers that one of the extras in the film looks exactly like him. He becomes obsessed with this apparent identical twin, and eventually tracks the man down and contacts him. From then on, both are obsessed with the idea of why they are identical, down to their moles and scars, and which one is the copy of the other. Disaster follows, and even though I was able to guess the disaster, it was still interesting.

But I'm only giving it three stars, firstly because I'm frankly getting a little tired of Jose Saramgo's rambling writing style. Would it really ruin the story that much if he put in some goddamn quotation marks around the dialogue every now and then? It's a stylistic choice, I get it. Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that Saramago doesn't like women - if the representation of female characters in this book and Blindness (the other book of his that I've read), he certainly doesn't find them interesting enough to exert much influence on a story. Also the ending of this particular book is vaguely misogynist and deeply unpleasant in regards to the female characters, and I did not care for it at all.

Honestly, I think this story would have actually worked best as a 30-minute episode of The Twilight Zone.

"We all know that each day that dawns is the first for some, and will be the last for others, and that for most people it will be just another day. For the history teacher Tertuliano Maximo Afonso, this day in which we find ourselves, in which we continue to exist, since there is no reason to believe it will be our last, will not be just another day. One might say that it appeared in the world with the possibility of being another first day, another beginning, and indicating, therefore, another destiny. Everything depends on what steps Tertuliano Maximo Afonso takes today. However, the procession, as people used to say in times gone by, is just about to leave the church. Let's follow it."]]> 3.91 2002 The Double
author: José Saramago
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.91
book published: 2002
rating: 3
read at: 2011/01/01
date added: 2011/01/11
shelves: the-list
review:
"The man who has just come into the shop to rent a video bears on his identity card a most unusual name, a name with a classical flavor that time has staled, neither more nor less than Tertuliano Maximo Afonso. The Maximo and the Afonso, which are in more common usage, he can just about tolerate, depending, of course, on the mood he's in, but the Tertuliano weighs on him like a gravestone and has done, ever since he first realized that the wretched name lent itself to being spoken in an ironic, potentially offensive tone. He is a history teacher at a secondary school, and a colleague had suggested the video to him with the warning, It's not exactly a masterpiece of cinema, but it might keep you amused for an hour and a half. Tertuliano Maximo Afonso is greatly in need of stimuli to distract him, he lives alone and gets bored, or, to speak with the clinical exactitude that the present day requires, he has succumbed to the temporary weakness of spirit known as depression."

A very interesting premise, written in the overly-analytical and run-on way that Saramago is so fond of: as described above, a history teacher with a funny name watches a video, and to his shock discovers that one of the extras in the film looks exactly like him. He becomes obsessed with this apparent identical twin, and eventually tracks the man down and contacts him. From then on, both are obsessed with the idea of why they are identical, down to their moles and scars, and which one is the copy of the other. Disaster follows, and even though I was able to guess the disaster, it was still interesting.

But I'm only giving it three stars, firstly because I'm frankly getting a little tired of Jose Saramgo's rambling writing style. Would it really ruin the story that much if he put in some goddamn quotation marks around the dialogue every now and then? It's a stylistic choice, I get it. Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that Saramago doesn't like women - if the representation of female characters in this book and Blindness (the other book of his that I've read), he certainly doesn't find them interesting enough to exert much influence on a story. Also the ending of this particular book is vaguely misogynist and deeply unpleasant in regards to the female characters, and I did not care for it at all.

Honestly, I think this story would have actually worked best as a 30-minute episode of The Twilight Zone.

"We all know that each day that dawns is the first for some, and will be the last for others, and that for most people it will be just another day. For the history teacher Tertuliano Maximo Afonso, this day in which we find ourselves, in which we continue to exist, since there is no reason to believe it will be our last, will not be just another day. One might say that it appeared in the world with the possibility of being another first day, another beginning, and indicating, therefore, another destiny. Everything depends on what steps Tertuliano Maximo Afonso takes today. However, the procession, as people used to say in times gone by, is just about to leave the church. Let's follow it."
]]> Madame Bovary 2175 329 Gustave Flaubert 0192840398 Madeline 4 the-list doesn't ruin her life. First Anna Karenina, now Emma Bovary...it's almost as if these male authors are trying to send a message to their lady readers, hm?

That's my big gripe, really. Aside from that, this is actually a very nice book. There's not much action, the pace moves slowly, and I would not blame you for disliking every single character in it, but it was still very enjoyable. My liking of this book hinged entirely on whether or not I liked Emma, and surprisingly I did. Actually, maybe liked is too strong a word - I guess it's more correct to say that I sympathized with her. Much like Belle, she wanted adventure in the great wide somewhere, but got stuck married to lameass milquetoast Charles Bovary instead, and although her life isn't bad, it's boring. "Charles's conversation was as flat as a sidewalk, and everyone's ideas walked along it, in their ordinary clothes, without inspiring emotion, or laughter, or reverie." Emma is completely wrong for him in every way - she's selfish, a dreamer, a romantic, and kind of a shopping addict.

"Accustomed to the calm aspects of things, she turned, instead, toward the more tumultuous. She loved the sea only for its storms, and greenery only when it grew up here and there among ruins. She needed to derive from things a sort of personal gain; and she rejected as useless everything that did not contribute to the immediate gratification of her heart, - being by temperament more sentimental than artistic, in search of emotions and not landscapes."

Add that to a love of romance novels, and Emma becomes the prime target for a ruinous affair. Two, actually, but the much more interesting one is with a nobleman named Rodolphe, and it goes about as well as can be expected. Emma's addictive personality applies itself to him, and the affair doesn't go the way she hoped.

Also, Rodolphe is a douche. Here he is thinking over all his various affairs: "Indeed, these women, flocking into his thoughts all at the same time, impeded and diminished one another, as though leveled by the sameness of his love. And picking up fistfuls of the disordered letters, he amused himself for a few minutes letting them fall in cascades from his right hand to his left. At last, bored, sleepy, Rodolphe carried the tin back to the cupboard, saying to himself,
'What a load of nonsense!'...
For his pleasures, like schoolchildren in a schoolyard, had so trampled his heart that nothing green grew there, and whatever passed through it, more heedless than the children, did not even leave behind its name, as they did, carved on the wall."

The characters all desperately want to believe that they're living in a romance novel, but that isn't what this book is. There's nothing particularly romantic about it, and by the end, when everything's been ruined and the characters are still living their lives the same way as before, all we're left with is sadness, and a feeling of helplessness. You get the sense that no matter what you as the reader may have wanted, there was no other ending for these characters. They could live the same story over and over again, and nothing would change because they would never learn from their mistakes. ]]> 3.70 1856 Madame Bovary
author: Gustave Flaubert
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.70
book published: 1856
rating: 4
read at: 2010/12/01
date added: 2010/12/23
shelves: the-list
review:
Just once, I'd like to read a story about a woman who has an affair that doesn't ruin her life. First Anna Karenina, now Emma Bovary...it's almost as if these male authors are trying to send a message to their lady readers, hm?

That's my big gripe, really. Aside from that, this is actually a very nice book. There's not much action, the pace moves slowly, and I would not blame you for disliking every single character in it, but it was still very enjoyable. My liking of this book hinged entirely on whether or not I liked Emma, and surprisingly I did. Actually, maybe liked is too strong a word - I guess it's more correct to say that I sympathized with her. Much like Belle, she wanted adventure in the great wide somewhere, but got stuck married to lameass milquetoast Charles Bovary instead, and although her life isn't bad, it's boring. "Charles's conversation was as flat as a sidewalk, and everyone's ideas walked along it, in their ordinary clothes, without inspiring emotion, or laughter, or reverie." Emma is completely wrong for him in every way - she's selfish, a dreamer, a romantic, and kind of a shopping addict.

"Accustomed to the calm aspects of things, she turned, instead, toward the more tumultuous. She loved the sea only for its storms, and greenery only when it grew up here and there among ruins. She needed to derive from things a sort of personal gain; and she rejected as useless everything that did not contribute to the immediate gratification of her heart, - being by temperament more sentimental than artistic, in search of emotions and not landscapes."

Add that to a love of romance novels, and Emma becomes the prime target for a ruinous affair. Two, actually, but the much more interesting one is with a nobleman named Rodolphe, and it goes about as well as can be expected. Emma's addictive personality applies itself to him, and the affair doesn't go the way she hoped.

Also, Rodolphe is a douche. Here he is thinking over all his various affairs: "Indeed, these women, flocking into his thoughts all at the same time, impeded and diminished one another, as though leveled by the sameness of his love. And picking up fistfuls of the disordered letters, he amused himself for a few minutes letting them fall in cascades from his right hand to his left. At last, bored, sleepy, Rodolphe carried the tin back to the cupboard, saying to himself,
'What a load of nonsense!'...
For his pleasures, like schoolchildren in a schoolyard, had so trampled his heart that nothing green grew there, and whatever passed through it, more heedless than the children, did not even leave behind its name, as they did, carved on the wall."

The characters all desperately want to believe that they're living in a romance novel, but that isn't what this book is. There's nothing particularly romantic about it, and by the end, when everything's been ruined and the characters are still living their lives the same way as before, all we're left with is sadness, and a feeling of helplessness. You get the sense that no matter what you as the reader may have wanted, there was no other ending for these characters. They could live the same story over and over again, and nothing would change because they would never learn from their mistakes.
]]> The Cider House Rules 4687 1064 John Irving 0786226749 Madeline 5 the-list The Cider House Rules contains no epic journeys, no great battles, no romances for the ages, and no heroes. It's an ordinary story, but Irving's writing makes it seem just as incredible and important as The Odyssey.

Maybe it's the time span - the book covers a period of over 50 years, and centers on two central characters. They are Dr. Wilbur Larch, who performs illegal abortions at the St. Cloud's orphanage, which he runs; and Homer Wells, the orphan who is never adopted. Dr. Larch delivers babies who are to be left at the orphanage, and performs abortions on the women who request them. As Homer grows up, Dr. Larch teaches him to deliver babies and perform abortions, planning to make Homer his successor. Instead, Homer leaves the orphanage and goes to live and work on an apple farm.

A lot happens. Most of it isn't very happy, some is disgusting, and some of it is beautiful. Since the issue of abortion is a big part of the story, there's a lot of time devoted to arguing each side of the debate. Although Irving is pretty plainly pro-choice, there's ample evidence within the book to support a pro-life stance as well. For instance, the moment when Homer Wells decides that he won't perform abortions:

"In eight weeks, though still not quick, the fetus has a nose and a mouth; it has an expression, thought Homer Wells. And with this discovery - that a fetus, as early as eight weeks, has an expression - Homer Wells felt in the presence of what others call a soul.
...You can call it a fetus, or an embryo, or the products of conception, thought Homer Wells, but whatever you call it, it's alive. And whatever you do to it, Homer thought - and whatever you call what you do - you're killing it."

I find it very interesting that Homer Wells reaches his decision not to perform abortions by looking at a fetus. Dr. Larch, on the other hand, decides to perform abortions by looking at a mother. A young girl dies because he won't perform an abortion on her; later, he agrees to do the procedure on another underage girl and saves her.

"By the time he got back to Portland, he had worked the matter out. He was an obstetrician; he delivered babies into the world. His colleagues called it 'the Lord's work.' And he was an abortionist; he delivered mothers, too. His colleagues called this 'the Devil's work,' but it was all the Lord's work to Wilbur Larch. ...He could quite comfortably abstain from having sex for the rest of his life, but how could he ever condemn another person for having sex? He would remember, too, what he hadn't done for Mrs. Eames's daughter, and what that had cost.
He would deliver babies. He would deliver mothers, too."

It's heavy stuff. There's also a lot of really detailed, anatomical descriptions of the process of delivery and abortion, and the squeamish should be forewarned: if you can't handle the following passage, give this book a pass:
"'I have made this observation about the wall of the uterus,' Dr. Larch told the ghostly young man. 'It is a good, hard, muscular wall, and when you've scraped it clean, it responds with a gritty sound. That's how you know when you've got all of it - all the products of conception. You just listen for the gritty sound.' He scraped some more. 'Can you hear it?'"

On a lighter note, the book also contains a frankly delightful selection of dirty limericks, and to end this downer review on a funny note, I'll share one. Send the kids to bed and enjoy, folks:
"Oh pity the Duchess of Kent!
Her cunt is so dreadfully bent,
The poor wench doth stammer,
'I need a sledgehammer
To pound a man into my vent.'"

Aw yeah. Keepin' it classy.

]]> 4.16 1985 The Cider House Rules
author: John Irving
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.16
book published: 1985
rating: 5
read at: 2010/12/01
date added: 2010/12/17
shelves: the-list
review:
What I love about John Irving's novels is how they chronicle ordinary people living mostly ordinary lives, but somehow manage to come off as great, sweeping epics. I don't know how he does it - The Cider House Rules contains no epic journeys, no great battles, no romances for the ages, and no heroes. It's an ordinary story, but Irving's writing makes it seem just as incredible and important as The Odyssey.

Maybe it's the time span - the book covers a period of over 50 years, and centers on two central characters. They are Dr. Wilbur Larch, who performs illegal abortions at the St. Cloud's orphanage, which he runs; and Homer Wells, the orphan who is never adopted. Dr. Larch delivers babies who are to be left at the orphanage, and performs abortions on the women who request them. As Homer grows up, Dr. Larch teaches him to deliver babies and perform abortions, planning to make Homer his successor. Instead, Homer leaves the orphanage and goes to live and work on an apple farm.

A lot happens. Most of it isn't very happy, some is disgusting, and some of it is beautiful. Since the issue of abortion is a big part of the story, there's a lot of time devoted to arguing each side of the debate. Although Irving is pretty plainly pro-choice, there's ample evidence within the book to support a pro-life stance as well. For instance, the moment when Homer Wells decides that he won't perform abortions:

"In eight weeks, though still not quick, the fetus has a nose and a mouth; it has an expression, thought Homer Wells. And with this discovery - that a fetus, as early as eight weeks, has an expression - Homer Wells felt in the presence of what others call a soul.
...You can call it a fetus, or an embryo, or the products of conception, thought Homer Wells, but whatever you call it, it's alive. And whatever you do to it, Homer thought - and whatever you call what you do - you're killing it."

I find it very interesting that Homer Wells reaches his decision not to perform abortions by looking at a fetus. Dr. Larch, on the other hand, decides to perform abortions by looking at a mother. A young girl dies because he won't perform an abortion on her; later, he agrees to do the procedure on another underage girl and saves her.

"By the time he got back to Portland, he had worked the matter out. He was an obstetrician; he delivered babies into the world. His colleagues called it 'the Lord's work.' And he was an abortionist; he delivered mothers, too. His colleagues called this 'the Devil's work,' but it was all the Lord's work to Wilbur Larch. ...He could quite comfortably abstain from having sex for the rest of his life, but how could he ever condemn another person for having sex? He would remember, too, what he hadn't done for Mrs. Eames's daughter, and what that had cost.
He would deliver babies. He would deliver mothers, too."

It's heavy stuff. There's also a lot of really detailed, anatomical descriptions of the process of delivery and abortion, and the squeamish should be forewarned: if you can't handle the following passage, give this book a pass:
"'I have made this observation about the wall of the uterus,' Dr. Larch told the ghostly young man. 'It is a good, hard, muscular wall, and when you've scraped it clean, it responds with a gritty sound. That's how you know when you've got all of it - all the products of conception. You just listen for the gritty sound.' He scraped some more. 'Can you hear it?'"

On a lighter note, the book also contains a frankly delightful selection of dirty limericks, and to end this downer review on a funny note, I'll share one. Send the kids to bed and enjoy, folks:
"Oh pity the Duchess of Kent!
Her cunt is so dreadfully bent,
The poor wench doth stammer,
'I need a sledgehammer
To pound a man into my vent.'"

Aw yeah. Keepin' it classy.


]]> <![CDATA[The Big Sleep (Philip Marlowe, #1)]]> 2052
This is an alternate cover edition.]]> 231 Raymond Chandler 0394758285 Madeline 2
Here's my problem: while I understand that the 1930's were a very homophobic and sexist time and that books written during that era are bound to include some stuff that makes me uncomfortable, that doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy reading a book where the hero is homophobic and misogynist. Philip Marlowe, the hard-boiled detective of The Big Sleep, makes Sam Spade look like a refined gentleman in comparison. And I guess he is - Spade has pimp-slapped his share of the ladies, but never tried to assure the reader that "she didn't mind the slap...Probably all her boy friends got around to slapping her sooner or later. I could understand how they might." Spade never described a room's decor as having "a stealthy nastiness, like a fag party." Also, the female characters in this book are all loathsome. There's no Brigid O'Shaunessy, who was violent and evil and awesome; and there's no Effie Perine. Only a couple of psycho rich girls who Marlowe sneers at while rolling his eyes at their repeated attempts to sleep with him, the stupid whores.

I'll admit, there can be certain guilty pleasure to be had from reading the perspective of such an unashamedly bigoted character. But it gets old fast, and eventually just left a bad taste in my mouth. Thank you for your time, Mr. Marlowe, but I'm casting my lot with Mr. Spade. He knows how to treat a lady.

Read for: Social Forces in the Detective Novel]]> 3.96 1939 The Big Sleep (Philip Marlowe, #1)
author: Raymond Chandler
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.96
book published: 1939
rating: 2
read at: 2010/09/01
date added: 2010/09/22
shelves: assigned-reading, the-list, detective-fiction
review:
Okay, so it wasn't bad. There's lots of fistfights and shooting and dames, and our detective hero is appropriately jaded and tight-lipped. The bad guys are crazy, the women are freaks in both the streets and the sheets, and there's a subplot involving a pornography racket. Everyone talks in 30's-tastic slang and usually the reader has no idea what everyone keeps yelling about. It's a violent, fast-paced, garter-snapping (the Depression equivalent of bodice-ripping, I imagine) detective thriller, and you could do a lot worse. Chandler, like his contemporary Dashiel Hammett, has a gift for gorgeous description and atmosphere, and uses it well. But I just can't stomach giving this more than 2 stars.

Here's my problem: while I understand that the 1930's were a very homophobic and sexist time and that books written during that era are bound to include some stuff that makes me uncomfortable, that doesn't mean I'm going to enjoy reading a book where the hero is homophobic and misogynist. Philip Marlowe, the hard-boiled detective of The Big Sleep, makes Sam Spade look like a refined gentleman in comparison. And I guess he is - Spade has pimp-slapped his share of the ladies, but never tried to assure the reader that "she didn't mind the slap...Probably all her boy friends got around to slapping her sooner or later. I could understand how they might." Spade never described a room's decor as having "a stealthy nastiness, like a fag party." Also, the female characters in this book are all loathsome. There's no Brigid O'Shaunessy, who was violent and evil and awesome; and there's no Effie Perine. Only a couple of psycho rich girls who Marlowe sneers at while rolling his eyes at their repeated attempts to sleep with him, the stupid whores.

I'll admit, there can be certain guilty pleasure to be had from reading the perspective of such an unashamedly bigoted character. But it gets old fast, and eventually just left a bad taste in my mouth. Thank you for your time, Mr. Marlowe, but I'm casting my lot with Mr. Spade. He knows how to treat a lady.

Read for: Social Forces in the Detective Novel
]]> Orlando 18839 Orlando 'The longest and most charming love letter in literature', playfully constructs the figure of Orlando as the fictional embodiment of Woolf's close friend and lover, Vita Sackville-West. Spanning three centuries, the novel opens as Orlando, a young nobleman in Elizabeth's England, awaits a visit from the Queen and traces his experience with first love as England under James I lies locked in the embrace of the Great Frost. At the midpoint of the novel, Orlando, now an ambassador in Constantinople, awakes to find that he is now a woman, and the novel indulges in farce and irony to consider the roles of women in the 18th and 19th centuries. As the novel ends in 1928, a year consonant with full suffrage for women. Orlando, now a wife and mother, stands poised at the brink of a future that holds new hope and promise for women.]]> 336 Virginia Woolf 0141184272 Madeline 5
Every single emotion I've ever felt and every thought I've ever had, had already been felt and thought and written down by Virginia Woolf decades before I was even born. There is not a single concept or feeling in any of her books that isn't already intimately familiar to me. Reading her books is like having someone look into my own mind, deeper than I ever looked, and discovering something that is simultaneously unheard of and completely recognizable. ]]> 3.88 1928 Orlando
author: Virginia Woolf
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.88
book published: 1928
rating: 5
read at: 2010/08/01
date added: 2010/08/27
shelves: the-list, all-time-favorites, historic-fiction
review:
I finished this book about a week ago, and have been trying ever since to figure out how I'm supposed to review it. I honestly can't think of anything to say except this:

Every single emotion I've ever felt and every thought I've ever had, had already been felt and thought and written down by Virginia Woolf decades before I was even born. There is not a single concept or feeling in any of her books that isn't already intimately familiar to me. Reading her books is like having someone look into my own mind, deeper than I ever looked, and discovering something that is simultaneously unheard of and completely recognizable.
]]> <![CDATA[The Nine Tailors (Lord Peter Wimsey, #11)]]> 126675 397 Dorothy L. Sayers 0151658978 Madeline 4 the-list, detective-fiction Strong Poison should have made the list, but the good people at The List Inc. haven't ever listened to my suggestions and certainly aren't going to start now. That being said, The Nine Tailors is still a delightful addition to Lord Peter Wimsey's collection of exploits.

The thing I love about Dorothy Sayers, and the reason I now like her more than Agatha Christie, is because I always learn something from her novels. In this book, the lesson of the day is the art of bellringing. (in fact the title doesn't refer to literal tailors at all; "nine tailors" are the nine bell strokes rung to announce a death) If you think bellringing is a simple act, you will find out exactly how wrong you are by the third chapter. If you acknowledge that bellringing is probably more interesting than it sounds, you will still learn what an understatement that is.

It needs to be admitted here that, having finished the book, I still don't really understand all the bellringer shop-talk that goes on in the novel. The problem is that Lord Peter is actually a practiced bellringer already (because there is nothing Lord Peter cannot do), so there's never a need for any of the characters to really explain things. So conversations about bellringing go more like, "Okay, we're going to do this this and this, got that?" "Of course I do, and are we going to whatsit the thingamabob with the whangdoodle?" and I'm sitting there reading all of this and feeling like I missed something important.

But luckily, a deep understanding of bells isn't vital to understanding the greater mystery - which is awesome, by the way, and involves stolen emeralds. Also this is the first Sayers mystery I've read where the murder occurs after the book starts, which was cool. ]]> 4.02 1934 The Nine Tailors (Lord Peter Wimsey, #11)
author: Dorothy L. Sayers
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.02
book published: 1934
rating: 4
read at: 2010/07/01
date added: 2010/07/28
shelves: the-list, detective-fiction
review:
1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, in its infinite wisdom, has seen fit to make this book one of two Dorothy Sayers mysteries that you absolutely have to read or you are illiterate. I still say that Strong Poison should have made the list, but the good people at The List Inc. haven't ever listened to my suggestions and certainly aren't going to start now. That being said, The Nine Tailors is still a delightful addition to Lord Peter Wimsey's collection of exploits.

The thing I love about Dorothy Sayers, and the reason I now like her more than Agatha Christie, is because I always learn something from her novels. In this book, the lesson of the day is the art of bellringing. (in fact the title doesn't refer to literal tailors at all; "nine tailors" are the nine bell strokes rung to announce a death) If you think bellringing is a simple act, you will find out exactly how wrong you are by the third chapter. If you acknowledge that bellringing is probably more interesting than it sounds, you will still learn what an understatement that is.

It needs to be admitted here that, having finished the book, I still don't really understand all the bellringer shop-talk that goes on in the novel. The problem is that Lord Peter is actually a practiced bellringer already (because there is nothing Lord Peter cannot do), so there's never a need for any of the characters to really explain things. So conversations about bellringing go more like, "Okay, we're going to do this this and this, got that?" "Of course I do, and are we going to whatsit the thingamabob with the whangdoodle?" and I'm sitting there reading all of this and feeling like I missed something important.

But luckily, a deep understanding of bells isn't vital to understanding the greater mystery - which is awesome, by the way, and involves stolen emeralds. Also this is the first Sayers mystery I've read where the murder occurs after the book starts, which was cool.
]]> <![CDATA[Murder Must Advertise (Lord Peter Wimsey, #10)]]> 351559 356 Dorothy L. Sayers 0061043559 Madeline 4 Strong Poison, it was still very good.

The majority of the action takes place at Pym's Publicity, an advertising firm in London. One of their employees recently and mysteriously died after falling down an iron staircase in the office, and it's suspected that he may have known something about another employee that caused him to be murdered. So Lord Peter gets out his Super Awesome Detective Disguise Kit and goes to work at Pym's undercover in order to find out what this guy might have known.

Like Strong Poison, you learn a lot of random but useful information over the course of the mystery. Then, it was lockpicking and Spiritualism. Now, it's the secrets of advertising and the cocaine trade. (and the two are not necessarily unrelated) In fact, you learn a lot about the whole advertising business, resulting in some interesting bits like this:
"Like all rich men, [Lord Peter:] had never before paid any attention to advertisements. He had never realized the enormous commercial importance of the comparatively poor. Not on the wealthy, who buy only what they want when they want it, was the vast superstructure of industry founded and built up, but on those who, aching for a luxury beyond their reach and for a leisure for ever denied them, could be bullied or wheedled into spending their few hardly won shillings on whatever might give them, if only for a moment, a leisured and luxurious illusion."

Wow. I'm also happy to report that Lord Peter is still a darling in this one, and still hilarious. My favorite moment was at a point in the plot when it becomes necessary to sneak Peter out of police headquarters. His brother-in-law, an officer, is explaining that they'll have to sneak him out the back and Peter interrupts happily, "Disguised as a policeman? Oh, Charles, do let me be a policeman! I should adore it."

A few other reviewers have complained about Lord Peter's conduct towards one of the characters, Dian de Momerie. She's in with the cocaine-smuggling crowd, so Lord Peter basically has to seduce her in order to get at the drug kingpins. This involves dressing in disguises, following Dian around, and admittedly treating her rather dismissively. Ungentlemanly? Yes. Proof that Lord Peter isn't as great as I say he is? Shut your whore mouth. Here's the thing: I think Lord Peter acted like a jackass to Dian because that's the kind of guy she'd be most attracted to. She's dating a drug kingpin who treats her like dirt, and she in turn treats her various beaux like dirt. She responds best to dismissive and insulting behavior (what we'll call the Bella Swan Complex), and that's just the fastest way to get on her good side. I maintain that Lord Peter is still wonderful.

Also there's a great offhand line that mentions that Lord Peter "went out to keep his date with the one young woman who showed no signs of yielding to him" and I got really excited there because I knew who Sayers meant. I read that line and was like, "It's Harriet Vane! He's going on a date with Harriet! Hi, Harriet! Hi!" and it was a little embarrassing. ]]> 4.17 1933 Murder Must Advertise (Lord Peter Wimsey, #10)
author: Dorothy L. Sayers
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.17
book published: 1933
rating: 4
read at: 2010/07/01
date added: 2010/07/12
shelves: the-list, detective-fiction, all-time-favorites
review:
After a brief fling with Miss Marple, I'm back with Lord Peter Wimsey - the most delightful detective who ever delighted whilst detecting. This book is one of two Dorothy Sayers mysteries featured on The List, and while I didn't enjoy it as much as Strong Poison, it was still very good.

The majority of the action takes place at Pym's Publicity, an advertising firm in London. One of their employees recently and mysteriously died after falling down an iron staircase in the office, and it's suspected that he may have known something about another employee that caused him to be murdered. So Lord Peter gets out his Super Awesome Detective Disguise Kit and goes to work at Pym's undercover in order to find out what this guy might have known.

Like Strong Poison, you learn a lot of random but useful information over the course of the mystery. Then, it was lockpicking and Spiritualism. Now, it's the secrets of advertising and the cocaine trade. (and the two are not necessarily unrelated) In fact, you learn a lot about the whole advertising business, resulting in some interesting bits like this:
"Like all rich men, [Lord Peter:] had never before paid any attention to advertisements. He had never realized the enormous commercial importance of the comparatively poor. Not on the wealthy, who buy only what they want when they want it, was the vast superstructure of industry founded and built up, but on those who, aching for a luxury beyond their reach and for a leisure for ever denied them, could be bullied or wheedled into spending their few hardly won shillings on whatever might give them, if only for a moment, a leisured and luxurious illusion."

Wow. I'm also happy to report that Lord Peter is still a darling in this one, and still hilarious. My favorite moment was at a point in the plot when it becomes necessary to sneak Peter out of police headquarters. His brother-in-law, an officer, is explaining that they'll have to sneak him out the back and Peter interrupts happily, "Disguised as a policeman? Oh, Charles, do let me be a policeman! I should adore it."

A few other reviewers have complained about Lord Peter's conduct towards one of the characters, Dian de Momerie. She's in with the cocaine-smuggling crowd, so Lord Peter basically has to seduce her in order to get at the drug kingpins. This involves dressing in disguises, following Dian around, and admittedly treating her rather dismissively. Ungentlemanly? Yes. Proof that Lord Peter isn't as great as I say he is? Shut your whore mouth. Here's the thing: I think Lord Peter acted like a jackass to Dian because that's the kind of guy she'd be most attracted to. She's dating a drug kingpin who treats her like dirt, and she in turn treats her various beaux like dirt. She responds best to dismissive and insulting behavior (what we'll call the Bella Swan Complex), and that's just the fastest way to get on her good side. I maintain that Lord Peter is still wonderful.

Also there's a great offhand line that mentions that Lord Peter "went out to keep his date with the one young woman who showed no signs of yielding to him" and I got really excited there because I knew who Sayers meant. I read that line and was like, "It's Harriet Vane! He's going on a date with Harriet! Hi, Harriet! Hi!" and it was a little embarrassing.
]]> <![CDATA[The Spy Who Came In from the Cold (George Smiley, #3)]]> 19494 212 John Le Carré Madeline 2 the-list
But I cannot in good conscience give this more than two stars, for the simple reason that, for the majority of the book, I never had any idea what was going on.

The story, to give you some idea of what I mean, can be best summed up like this: Leamas is a British spy in the 50's dealing with the Soviets. He wants to retire from the service and grudgingly agrees to do one last job, even though he is Getting Too Old For This Shit. His job: get fired from the service, fall into disgrace, get recruited by Soviets, double-cross them and take out a former British agent who's working for Berlin now. (if you've seen The Departed you can kinda guess how it goes) Then there's a trial, which is weird, because I kinda thought the whole purpose of being a spy was the ability to work outside the confines of the law, but whatever. So there's a lot of secrecy going on, and the problem is that le Carre often doesn't bother to let the readers in on the secrets. Code phrases are used and not explained, past characters and events are referenced frequently as if we're supposed to know who/what they are (to the point where I thought I had accidentally picked up a book that was part of a series), and Leamas (our unreliable narrator) certainly ain't talking.

Also, the book is about Soviet Germany in the 50's, which put me at an immediate disadvantage. Look, I was born in 1989 - I just don't know that much about post-WWII Soviet politics, and they frankly don't interest me enough to do background research just so I can understand this story. When I found myself trying to remember which side of the Berlin Wall was the Communist one, I knew I was out of my league. This is a good story, the problem was that it just went over my head completely and I wasn't able to appreciate it as much as I should have.

"There's only one law in this game. ...What do you think spies are: priests, saints and martyrs? They're a squalid procession of vain fools, traitors too, yes; pansies, sadists and drunkards, people who play cowboys and Indians to brighten their rotten lives. Do you think they sit like monks in London balancing the rights and wrongs? ...This is a war. It's graphic and unpleasant because it's fought on a tiny scale, at close range; fought with a wastage of innocent life sometimes, I admit. But it's nothing, nothing at all beside other wars - the last or the next."]]> 4.07 1963 The Spy Who Came In from the Cold (George Smiley, #3)
author: John Le Carré
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.07
book published: 1963
rating: 2
read at: 2010/06/01
date added: 2010/06/23
shelves: the-list
review:
This is on the list of 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, which means we are to respect it as a Very Important Book and give it a good rating. If I'm being honest, I guess it deserves this ranking. The characters are compelling, the dialogue is good, there are no superfluous scenes, and the whole thing has a creepy and secretive atmosphere that's very compelling.

But I cannot in good conscience give this more than two stars, for the simple reason that, for the majority of the book, I never had any idea what was going on.

The story, to give you some idea of what I mean, can be best summed up like this: Leamas is a British spy in the 50's dealing with the Soviets. He wants to retire from the service and grudgingly agrees to do one last job, even though he is Getting Too Old For This Shit. His job: get fired from the service, fall into disgrace, get recruited by Soviets, double-cross them and take out a former British agent who's working for Berlin now. (if you've seen The Departed you can kinda guess how it goes) Then there's a trial, which is weird, because I kinda thought the whole purpose of being a spy was the ability to work outside the confines of the law, but whatever. So there's a lot of secrecy going on, and the problem is that le Carre often doesn't bother to let the readers in on the secrets. Code phrases are used and not explained, past characters and events are referenced frequently as if we're supposed to know who/what they are (to the point where I thought I had accidentally picked up a book that was part of a series), and Leamas (our unreliable narrator) certainly ain't talking.

Also, the book is about Soviet Germany in the 50's, which put me at an immediate disadvantage. Look, I was born in 1989 - I just don't know that much about post-WWII Soviet politics, and they frankly don't interest me enough to do background research just so I can understand this story. When I found myself trying to remember which side of the Berlin Wall was the Communist one, I knew I was out of my league. This is a good story, the problem was that it just went over my head completely and I wasn't able to appreciate it as much as I should have.

"There's only one law in this game. ...What do you think spies are: priests, saints and martyrs? They're a squalid procession of vain fools, traitors too, yes; pansies, sadists and drunkards, people who play cowboys and Indians to brighten their rotten lives. Do you think they sit like monks in London balancing the rights and wrongs? ...This is a war. It's graphic and unpleasant because it's fought on a tiny scale, at close range; fought with a wastage of innocent life sometimes, I admit. But it's nothing, nothing at all beside other wars - the last or the next."
]]> Persepolis 1272465 Persepolis est une série de bande dessinée autobiographique en noir et blanc dont les quatre volumes ont été publiés entre 2000 et 2003. L'auteur y retrace les étapes marquantes qui ont rythmé sa vie, de son enfance à Téhéran pendant la révolution islamique à son entrée difficile dans la vie adulte en Europe.

À la fois témoignage historique et réflexion sur l'identité et l'exil, Persepolis est le plus grand succès éditorial de la bande dessinée alternative européenne des années 2000. Très bien reçu par la presse, il a fait de Satrapi l'un des auteurs francophones les plus reconnus.

En 2007, l'adaptation en long métrage d'animation de Persepolis, due à Vincent Paronnaud et Marjane Satrapi elle-même, obtient le prix du jury du Festival de Cannes.

]]> 352 Marjane Satrapi 2844142400 Madeline 4
God, that sounds like a bad recipe. Cut me some slack - I just finished the book, and it's still sinking in. I'll try and write a better review later.]]> 4.52 2007 Persepolis
author: Marjane Satrapi
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.52
book published: 2007
rating: 4
read at:
date added: 2010/06/19
shelves: the-list, kids-and-young-adult
review:
A quick, but incredibly eye-opening read. The graphic novel format means you can get through it in about half an hour, and then you have to read it a second time to let everything in the story absorb completely.

God, that sounds like a bad recipe. Cut me some slack - I just finished the book, and it's still sinking in. I'll try and write a better review later.
]]> The Princesse de Clèves 354364 The Princesse de Clèves also includes two shorter works also attributed to Mme de Lafayette, The Princesse de Montpensier and The Comtesse de Tende.]]> 288 Madame de La Fayette 0192837265 Madeline 4 So much court gossip. Most of it isn't even plot-related, but I still found it entertaining.

My only main complaint is that even though Diane de Poitiers is a minor character (the story takes place at the end of Henri II's reign, so it wasn't like they could just leave her out), Madame de Lafayette refuses to let her do anything interesting. She just stays in the background and doesn't serve any real purpose in the novel, which is sad, because Diane de Poitiers was .

Something else we discussed in my class, which I'll share here because I found it really interesting: so in 2009, French president Nicolas Sarkozy did what he does best and put his foot firmly in his mouth when he said that people didn't need to study the book - especially if they were preparing for low-level public sector jobs. Since going into hysterics over art is practically a national sport in France, everyone proceeded to do just that and organize .

Essentially, a bunch of people (like, hundreds) got together in cities all over France and staged public readings of La Princesse de Cleves to show their support for the book.

You have to admit, that's pretty damn cool.

Read for: French Literature from the Middle Ages to 1800]]> 3.44 1678 The Princesse de Clèves
author: Madame de La Fayette
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.44
book published: 1678
rating: 4
read at: 2010/03/01
date added: 2010/05/13
shelves: assigned-reading, the-list, historic-fiction
review:
I read this book in French, and as a result of this missed a lot of the smaller details of this book because despite taking French for seven years now I still can't really read it. But I got the main idea, and what I understood I really liked. The book's actually pretty exciting - there's lots of court intrigue, tournaments, plot digressions involving the misplacement of a Very Important Letter (on that note, isn't it amazing how many older books like this have plot points that revolve around Very Important Letters being misplaced?), and court gossip. So much court gossip. Most of it isn't even plot-related, but I still found it entertaining.

My only main complaint is that even though Diane de Poitiers is a minor character (the story takes place at the end of Henri II's reign, so it wasn't like they could just leave her out), Madame de Lafayette refuses to let her do anything interesting. She just stays in the background and doesn't serve any real purpose in the novel, which is sad, because Diane de Poitiers was .

Something else we discussed in my class, which I'll share here because I found it really interesting: so in 2009, French president Nicolas Sarkozy did what he does best and put his foot firmly in his mouth when he said that people didn't need to study the book - especially if they were preparing for low-level public sector jobs. Since going into hysterics over art is practically a national sport in France, everyone proceeded to do just that and organize .

Essentially, a bunch of people (like, hundreds) got together in cities all over France and staged public readings of La Princesse de Cleves to show their support for the book.

You have to admit, that's pretty damn cool.

Read for: French Literature from the Middle Ages to 1800
]]> Jane Eyre 11015 The instant and lasting success of Jane Eyre proved Brontë's instincts correct. Readers of her era and ever after have taken the impoverished orphan girl into their hearts, following her from the custody of cruel relatives to a dangerously oppressive boarding school and onward through a troubled career as a governess. Jane's first assignment at Thorn field, where the proud and cynical master of the house harbors a scandalous secret, draws readers ever deeper into a compelling exploration of the mysteries of the human heart.
A banquet of food for thought, this many-faceted tale invites a splendid variety of interpretations. The heroine's insistence upon emotional equality with her lover suggests a feminist viewpoint, while her solitary status invokes a consideration of the problems of growing up as a social outsider. Some regard Jane's attempts to reconcile her need for love with her search for moral rectitude as the story's primary message, and lovers of gothic romance find the tale's social and religious aspects secondary to its gripping elements of mystery and horror. This classic of English literature truly features something for every reader.]]> 422 Charlotte Brontë 0486424499 Madeline 2
Read for: 12th grade AP English

UPDATE:
Does anyone else read "Hark! A Vagrant"? It's a webcomic, and kind of amazing. Anyway, I was looking through the archive and found something that basically sums up how I feel about the Brontes. Enjoy.

]]> 4.07 1847 Jane Eyre
author: Charlotte Brontë
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.07
book published: 1847
rating: 2
read at: 2007/01/01
date added: 2010/05/09
shelves: the-list, assigned-reading, ugh
review:
If you like fantastically depressing subject matter that would make Dickens cry (think orphans, typhoid-infested boarding schools, and crazy people locked in attics) and an annoying protagonist who can't decided if she's independent or submissive, you'd probably like this book. I'll admit, I enjoyed the mystery aspect of the story, but as soon as Jane figures out what's causing strange noises late at night and setting fire to Mr. Rochester's bed, the plot kind of goes down the toilet. The mystery is solved about halfway through the story, so that's a lot of extra plot without much happening. Plus, one of the supporting characters talks almost exclusively in French, and Charlotte Bronte doesn't like translating it, which could be frustrating for someone who can't read French.

Read for: 12th grade AP English

UPDATE:
Does anyone else read "Hark! A Vagrant"? It's a webcomic, and kind of amazing. Anyway, I was looking through the archive and found something that basically sums up how I feel about the Brontes. Enjoy.


]]> <![CDATA[A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man]]> 7588 A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is a novel of sexual awakening, religious rebellion and the essential search for voice and meaning that every nascent artist must face in order to blossom fully into themselves.]]> 329 James Joyce 0142437344 Madeline 1
Read for: 12th grade AP English]]> 3.64 1916 A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
author: James Joyce
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.64
book published: 1916
rating: 1
read at:
date added: 2010/05/09
shelves: the-list, assigned-reading, ugh
review:
James Joyce is full of crap. I'd like to track down whoever invented stream-of-consciousness writing and kick him in the groin.

Read for: 12th grade AP English
]]> <![CDATA[The Talented Mr. Ripley (Ripley, #1)]]> 2247142
It’s here, in the first volume of Patricia Highsmith’s five-book Ripley series, that we are introduced to the suave Tom Ripley, a young striver seeking to leave behind his past as an orphan bullied for being a “sissy.� Newly arrived in the heady world of Manhattan, Ripley meets a wealthy industrialist who hires him to bring his playboy son, Dickie Greenleaf, back from gallivanting in Italy. Soon Ripley’s fascination with Dickie’s debonair lifestyle turns obsessive as he finds himself enraged by Dickie’s ambivalent affections for Marge, a charming American dilettante, and Ripley begins a deadly game.

“Sinister and strangely alluring,� (Mark Harris, Entertainment Weekly) The Talented Mr. Ripley serves as an unforgettable introduction to this smooth confidence man, whose talent for self-invention is as unnerving—and unnervingly revealing of the American psyche—as ever.]]> 271 Patricia Highsmith Madeline 4 the-list
Also, there's one crucial detail in the book that's not in the movie, which is a shame: Dickie's murder in the movie is an accident, a mistake - in the book, it's 100% premeditated and millions time creepier. Which makes it so much better.

"He hated becoming Thomas Ripley again, hated being nobody, hated putting on his old set of habits again, and feeling that people looked down on him and were bored with him unless he put on an act for them like a clown, feeling incompetent and incapable of doing anything with himself except entertaining people for minutes at a time. He hated going back to himself as he would have hated putting on a shabby suit of clothes, a grease-spotted, unpressed suit of clothes that had not been very good even when it was new.
...He couldn't give up the idea that it might all blow over. Just might. And for that reason it was senseless to be despondent. It was senseless to be despondent anyway, even as Tom Ripley. Tom Ripley had never really been despondent, though he had often looked it. Hadn't he learned something from these last months? If you wanted to be cheerful, or melancholic, or wistful, or thoughtful, or courteous, you simply had to act those things with every gesture." ]]> 3.96 1955 The Talented Mr. Ripley (Ripley, #1)
author: Patricia Highsmith
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.96
book published: 1955
rating: 4
read at: 2010/04/01
date added: 2010/04/03
shelves: the-list
review:
Wow. I really enjoyed this book, more than I expected to. Tom Ripley is one creepy son of a bitch sociopath, in a way that Matt Damon (bless his heart) wasn't really able to convey. Nor is Marge quite as obnoxious and silly in the movie as she is in the book. Really, the only person in the movie version who was properly cast was Jude Law as Dickie Greenleaf. So yeah: the movie's entertaining and well done, but read the book.

Also, there's one crucial detail in the book that's not in the movie, which is a shame: Dickie's murder in the movie is an accident, a mistake - in the book, it's 100% premeditated and millions time creepier. Which makes it so much better.

"He hated becoming Thomas Ripley again, hated being nobody, hated putting on his old set of habits again, and feeling that people looked down on him and were bored with him unless he put on an act for them like a clown, feeling incompetent and incapable of doing anything with himself except entertaining people for minutes at a time. He hated going back to himself as he would have hated putting on a shabby suit of clothes, a grease-spotted, unpressed suit of clothes that had not been very good even when it was new.
...He couldn't give up the idea that it might all blow over. Just might. And for that reason it was senseless to be despondent. It was senseless to be despondent anyway, even as Tom Ripley. Tom Ripley had never really been despondent, though he had often looked it. Hadn't he learned something from these last months? If you wanted to be cheerful, or melancholic, or wistful, or thoughtful, or courteous, you simply had to act those things with every gesture."
]]> Memoirs of a Geisha 930
In "Memoirs of a Geisha," we enter a world where appearances are paramount; where a girl's virginity is auctioned to the highest bidder; where women are trained to beguile the most powerful men; and where love is scorned as illusion. It is a unique and triumphant work of fiction - at once romantic, erotic, suspenseful - and completely unforgettable.]]> 434 Arthur Golden 0739326228 Madeline 3 the-list, historic-fiction The only part of this book that I didn't love was Sayuri's constant adoration of a man know only as the Chairman. Sayuri meets him when she's eight, and because he's kind to her and buys her a flavored ice, she decides that she's going to become a geisha just so she can meet him again. Did I mention that the chairman was about forty at the time? I didn't have a lot of faith in the level of Sayuri's love for him, and just couldn't wrap my head around the idea of an eight-year-old girl falling in love with a man more than thirty years her senior.

UPDATE: So, I wrote this review when I was in high school and didn't know much about the actual writing process of this book. Turns out Arthur Golden didn't actually do that much real research and had a bad habit of just making shit up. This book apparently pissed off a real geisha so much that she wrote her own book in response.

I'm writing this update now because today in my literature class we were talking about how we all basically read only British and American books, and this one girl starts talking about how she used to only read American books and then one day read Memoirs of a Geisha and it just, like, totally opened her eyes to other cultures. And everyone is looking at her like she just said that watching The Godfather helped her understand Italian history.

So basically what I'm saying is, don't come to this story looking for historical accuracy. It's still a good story, just not necessarily an accurate one. Think of it as fiction, and you'll be fine. ]]> 4.07 1997 Memoirs of a Geisha
author: Arthur Golden
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.07
book published: 1997
rating: 3
read at: 2004/01/01
date added: 2010/03/17
shelves: the-list, historic-fiction
review:
A beautiful story that explores the secret world of the Japanese geisha (if you think that geisha = prostitue, you need to read this book just to learn how wrong that assumption is), told in the style of an interview with a woman named Sayuri Nitta, who used to be one of the most famous geisha in Kyoto. My favorite parts of the story were the detailed descriptions of geisha beauty rituals (they wax their hair and sleep with their necks resting on wooden blocks so they don't mess up the hairstyles) and tradtions (when a geisha leaves her okiya, or geisha house, a spark is struck against her back for good luck). The descriptions of the kimono worn by Sayuri and the other geisha in the book are also gorgeous.
The only part of this book that I didn't love was Sayuri's constant adoration of a man know only as the Chairman. Sayuri meets him when she's eight, and because he's kind to her and buys her a flavored ice, she decides that she's going to become a geisha just so she can meet him again. Did I mention that the chairman was about forty at the time? I didn't have a lot of faith in the level of Sayuri's love for him, and just couldn't wrap my head around the idea of an eight-year-old girl falling in love with a man more than thirty years her senior.

UPDATE: So, I wrote this review when I was in high school and didn't know much about the actual writing process of this book. Turns out Arthur Golden didn't actually do that much real research and had a bad habit of just making shit up. This book apparently pissed off a real geisha so much that she wrote her own book in response.

I'm writing this update now because today in my literature class we were talking about how we all basically read only British and American books, and this one girl starts talking about how she used to only read American books and then one day read Memoirs of a Geisha and it just, like, totally opened her eyes to other cultures. And everyone is looking at her like she just said that watching The Godfather helped her understand Italian history.

So basically what I'm saying is, don't come to this story looking for historical accuracy. It's still a good story, just not necessarily an accurate one. Think of it as fiction, and you'll be fine.
]]> Middlemarch 19089 "People are almost always better than their neighbours think they are"

George Eliot’s most ambitious novel is a masterly evocation of diverse lives and changing fortunes in a provincial community. Peopling its landscape are Dorothea Brooke, a young idealist whose search for intellectual fulfillment leads her into a disastrous marriage to the pedantic scholar Casaubon; the charming but tactless Dr Lydgate, whose pioneering medical methods, combined with an imprudent marriage to the spendthrift beauty Rosamond, threaten to undermine his career; and the religious hypocrite Bulstrode, hiding scandalous crimes from his past. As their stories interweave, George Eliot creates a richly nuanced and moving drama, hailed by Virginia Woolf as "one of the few English novels written for grown-up people".]]> 912 George Eliot 0451529170 Madeline 1 the-list, ugh Ugh.

I'm trying, guys, I really am. But right now I'm about 100 pages into this book, and the thought of getting through the next 700 is making me want to throw myself under a train. And I almost never leave a book unread, so this is serious. However, since it's on The List, I feel I should at least try to give it another chance. But it's not going to be easy.

Here, in simplified list form, are the reasons I really, really want to abandon this book:
-It's everything I hate about Austen - boring dialogue and background information, endless nattering on about who's marrying whom - with none of the dry wit that makes her stories enjoyable.
-Dorothea is an insufferable, stuck-up know-it-all and I hate her. Also, her sister calls her "Dodo" in a horribly misguided attempt at affection, and every time I have to read it it's like a cheese grater to the forehead.
-She's nineteen years old and is marrying a forty-seven year old. I...I just can't. I know it's going to end badly which makes it slightly better but come on, Eliot.
-Simply put, I don't care. I don't care about these characters. I don't care about their boring lives. I don't care who marries whom and who is happy or not happy, and I really don't care about Dorothea's stupid cottage designs.
-I get the sense that none of the things I listed are going to change. I'm strongly sensing that the next 700 pages of this book are going to be the same exact stuff about marriage and unhappiness and Dodo and blah blah blaaaaahhhhh. Unless something really interesting is going to happen, I don't think I can keep going. At this point, it would take a zombie uprising at Middlemarch to make me invested in these characters and their lack of struggle.

Page 190:
Okay, I need to get to Part 5 before I can reasonably stop reading. Hopefully something resembling a plot will happen soon.

Page 300:
Nope. Nothin' yet.

Page 370:
OH MY GOD I DON'T CARE I DON'T CARE SHUT UP SHUT UP WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME ALL OF THIS GEORGE ELIOT WHHHHHHHYYYYYYY

Page 409:
Okay. I tried. No one can say I didn't give this book a fair chance. But I'm halfway through and NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. I just read 400 pages of some boring people going about their boring everyday business, and I'm DONE. Maybe I'm just not sophisticated enough to understand this book's genius. Maybe I can only be happy with a book if the characters are likeable and doing interesting things besides sitting around and thinking about how fucking miserable they all are. Maybe it's just my fault for having a bad attitude about this book from the beginning.

Who knows. But what I know for sure is this: I got to my designated halfway point on the flight back from vacation, and when we landed I made sure to leave Middlemarch on the plane. Hopefully it's adopted by someone who will love it more than I did.

ADDENDUM:
I just consulted The List to check this book off, and I decided to see if there were any other George Eliot books on it. Including Middlemarch, there are five Eliot books I'm supposed to read before I die. FIVE.
Goddamn it. ]]> 4.00 1872 Middlemarch
author: George Eliot
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.00
book published: 1872
rating: 1
read at: 2009/12/01
date added: 2009/12/27
shelves: the-list, ugh
review:
Page 97:
Ugh.

I'm trying, guys, I really am. But right now I'm about 100 pages into this book, and the thought of getting through the next 700 is making me want to throw myself under a train. And I almost never leave a book unread, so this is serious. However, since it's on The List, I feel I should at least try to give it another chance. But it's not going to be easy.

Here, in simplified list form, are the reasons I really, really want to abandon this book:
-It's everything I hate about Austen - boring dialogue and background information, endless nattering on about who's marrying whom - with none of the dry wit that makes her stories enjoyable.
-Dorothea is an insufferable, stuck-up know-it-all and I hate her. Also, her sister calls her "Dodo" in a horribly misguided attempt at affection, and every time I have to read it it's like a cheese grater to the forehead.
-She's nineteen years old and is marrying a forty-seven year old. I...I just can't. I know it's going to end badly which makes it slightly better but come on, Eliot.
-Simply put, I don't care. I don't care about these characters. I don't care about their boring lives. I don't care who marries whom and who is happy or not happy, and I really don't care about Dorothea's stupid cottage designs.
-I get the sense that none of the things I listed are going to change. I'm strongly sensing that the next 700 pages of this book are going to be the same exact stuff about marriage and unhappiness and Dodo and blah blah blaaaaahhhhh. Unless something really interesting is going to happen, I don't think I can keep going. At this point, it would take a zombie uprising at Middlemarch to make me invested in these characters and their lack of struggle.

Page 190:
Okay, I need to get to Part 5 before I can reasonably stop reading. Hopefully something resembling a plot will happen soon.

Page 300:
Nope. Nothin' yet.

Page 370:
OH MY GOD I DON'T CARE I DON'T CARE SHUT UP SHUT UP WHY ARE YOU TELLING ME ALL OF THIS GEORGE ELIOT WHHHHHHHYYYYYYY

Page 409:
Okay. I tried. No one can say I didn't give this book a fair chance. But I'm halfway through and NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. I just read 400 pages of some boring people going about their boring everyday business, and I'm DONE. Maybe I'm just not sophisticated enough to understand this book's genius. Maybe I can only be happy with a book if the characters are likeable and doing interesting things besides sitting around and thinking about how fucking miserable they all are. Maybe it's just my fault for having a bad attitude about this book from the beginning.

Who knows. But what I know for sure is this: I got to my designated halfway point on the flight back from vacation, and when we landed I made sure to leave Middlemarch on the plane. Hopefully it's adopted by someone who will love it more than I did.

ADDENDUM:
I just consulted The List to check this book off, and I decided to see if there were any other George Eliot books on it. Including Middlemarch, there are five Eliot books I'm supposed to read before I die. FIVE.
Goddamn it.
]]> The Virgin Suicides 46181 249 Jeffrey Eugenides 0446670251 Madeline 4 3.78 1993 The Virgin Suicides
author: Jeffrey Eugenides
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.78
book published: 1993
rating: 4
read at:
date added: 2009/12/16
shelves: the-list, kids-and-young-adult
review:
Morbidly engrossing. You know from the first page that all five Lisbon sisters are going to kill themselves, and you even know how they're each going to do it, but that won't stop you from reading to the very end to try and understand the five doomed, fascinating sisters who are the protagonists (if that term can even apply to them) of this incredibly depressing but wonderful novel.
]]> <![CDATA[The Fellowship of the Ring (The Lord of the Rings, #1)]]> 34
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkeness bind them

In ancient times the Rings of Power were crafted by the Elven-smiths, and Sauron, The Dark Lord, forged the One Ring, filling it with his own power so that he could rule all others. But the One Ring was taken from him, and though he sought it throughout Middle-earth, it remained lost to him. After many ages it fell into the hands of Bilbo Baggins, as told in The Hobbit.

In a sleepy village in the Shire, young Frodo Baggins finds himself faced with an immense task, as his elderly cousin Bilbo entrusts the Ring to his care. Frodo must leave his home and make a perilous journey across Middle-earth to the Cracks of Doom, there to destroy the Ring and foil the Dark Lord in his evil purpose.
--back cover]]> 398 J.R.R. Tolkien 0618346252 Madeline 2 three months just to leave the Shire!
But everyone else seems to really love this book, so I wouldn't take my word for it.

Update: About a year after reading this, I picked up The Two Towers on impulse and started reading it. I went on to read The Return of the King, and found both books much more fun to read than the first book in the series.
A note about The Return of the King: a good chunk of the end is just appendices; most of them are pretty boring and you can skip them without feeling too guilty. ]]> 4.36 1954 The Fellowship of the Ring (The Lord of the Rings, #1)
author: J.R.R. Tolkien
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.36
book published: 1954
rating: 2
read at:
date added: 2009/12/16
shelves: the-list, fantasy, the-movie-is-better
review:
Unfortunately, I read this book after I saw the movie version, so the pace of the novel felt way too slow and I got frustrated with it. Seriously though, after Frodo figures out that he has the Ring, it takes him three months just to leave the Shire!
But everyone else seems to really love this book, so I wouldn't take my word for it.

Update: About a year after reading this, I picked up The Two Towers on impulse and started reading it. I went on to read The Return of the King, and found both books much more fun to read than the first book in the series.
A note about The Return of the King: a good chunk of the end is just appendices; most of them are pretty boring and you can skip them without feeling too guilty.
]]> <![CDATA[The Handmaid’s Tale (The Handmaid's Tale, #1)]]> 38447
Funny, unexpected, horrifying, and altogether convincing, The Handmaid's Tale is at once scathing satire, dire warning, and tour de force.]]> 311 Margaret Atwood 038549081X Madeline 5 1984 from a woman's perspective, and Atwood writes it beautifully. I've read it about four times and I still love it. Nolite te bastardes carborundorum]]> 4.15 1985 The Handmaid’s Tale (The Handmaid's Tale, #1)
author: Margaret Atwood
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.15
book published: 1985
rating: 5
read at:
date added: 2009/12/16
shelves: the-list, science-fiction, all-time-favorites
review:
Wonderful. It's like 1984 from a woman's perspective, and Atwood writes it beautifully. I've read it about four times and I still love it. Nolite te bastardes carborundorum
]]> The Moonstone 6138
This Modern Library Paperback Classic is set from the definitive 1871 edition.]]> 528 Wilkie Collins 0375757856 Madeline 3 the-list So, anyway: Diamond is given to 18-year-old Rachel Verinder for her birthday, she puts it in her room, the whole house goes to bed, and in the morning the diamond is missing. Investigations and changing narratives ensue.
The different narrators are the best part of the story, but good lord could some of them stand to be edited a bit. The main narrator, Betteredge, is the head servant in the Verinder household, and as amusing as he is (extra points were given for random misogynist digressions), he does drone on a lot more than he should. Similarly, I got tired of Miss Clack almost immediately, and was very happy to finally be done with her section.
That's the main problem with the book: it...moves...so...slowly. All the narrators have a lot to say, and only some of it is actually that important. Also, some people who I felt should have gotten to narrate the story were conspicuously left out. For instance, I wanted Rachel to get a chance to tell her side of the story - she was an insufferable bitch from page one, and I wanted to know how she would have justified her actions throughout the story.

However, considering that this is the first detective novel ever written, I'm willing to excuse its faults on the basis that it's still pretty damn groundbreaking and exciting. It's kind of a slog, but in the end, I was glad I read it. ]]> 3.90 1868 The Moonstone
author: Wilkie Collins
name: Madeline
average rating: 3.90
book published: 1868
rating: 3
read at: 2009/11/01
date added: 2009/12/01
shelves: the-list
review:
Multiple narrators tell the story, from their own vastly different perspectives, of the finding, theft, and recovery of a huge diamond called the Moonstone. It's first stolen from an Indian temple (surprisingly, Collins actually intends the reader sympathize with the people it was stolen from, rather than just saying that brown people don't deserve diamonds) by some jackass Englishman, who then leaves it to his niece. The diamond is cursed, supposedly, but actually there are three very real men whose sole purpose in life is to track down the diamond and return it to the temple.
So, anyway: Diamond is given to 18-year-old Rachel Verinder for her birthday, she puts it in her room, the whole house goes to bed, and in the morning the diamond is missing. Investigations and changing narratives ensue.
The different narrators are the best part of the story, but good lord could some of them stand to be edited a bit. The main narrator, Betteredge, is the head servant in the Verinder household, and as amusing as he is (extra points were given for random misogynist digressions), he does drone on a lot more than he should. Similarly, I got tired of Miss Clack almost immediately, and was very happy to finally be done with her section.
That's the main problem with the book: it...moves...so...slowly. All the narrators have a lot to say, and only some of it is actually that important. Also, some people who I felt should have gotten to narrate the story were conspicuously left out. For instance, I wanted Rachel to get a chance to tell her side of the story - she was an insufferable bitch from page one, and I wanted to know how she would have justified her actions throughout the story.

However, considering that this is the first detective novel ever written, I'm willing to excuse its faults on the basis that it's still pretty damn groundbreaking and exciting. It's kind of a slog, but in the end, I was glad I read it.
]]> Watchmen 472331 Watchmen, the groundbreaking series from award-winning author Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, presents a world where the mere presence of American superheroes changed history—the U.S. won the Vietnam War, Nixon is still president, and the Cold War is in full effect.

Considered the greatest graphic novel in the history of the medium, the Hugo Award-winning story chronicles the fall from grace of a group of superheroes plagued by all-too-human failings. Along the way, the concept of the superhero is dissected as an unknown assassin stalks the erstwhile heroes.]]> 416 Alan Moore 0930289234 Madeline 4 science-fiction, the-list
1. The movie version, while long as hell, is actually really well done and accurate. And by "accurate" I of course mean "basically a frame-by-frame reproduction of the graphic novel." Not necessarily a bad thing, although they do change some details of the ending a little. I was okay with both versions, though. I think I still prefer the graphic novel, mostly because when I read it I don't have to deal with the horribly miscast Malin Ackerman. I knew she was ruining Silk Spectre II before I even read the original story. Every other character is perfectly cast, though, so it's mostly okay.

2. The movie The Incredibles is Watchmen for kids. For example, in excerpts from his book that are spaced throughout the graphic novel, a former superhero discusses his costume-making process: "I experimented with a cloak, remembering how the Shadow would use his cloak to misguide enemy bullets...In practice, however, I found it too unwieldy. I was always tripping over it or getting it caught in things, and so I abandoned it for an outfit that was as streamlined as I could make it."
Or, as Edna Mode would say, "NO CAPES!"

Movie references aside, I really liked all the technical details about being a superhero I'd never considered before (for example, how do they keep those little masks stuck to their faces? Spirit gum.), as well as the psychology of the superhero. That's really the whole point of Watchmen: the kind of people who are willing to put on a costume and fight crime may not be the kind of people you actually want to have running around beating up criminals. Case in point: Rorschach. I...I don't even have words to describe this character. The movie didn't even really do him justice.

In conclusion, amazing and thought-provoking and everyone should read it, even if you've never picked up a graphic novel before.

"Yes, we were crazy, we were kinky, we were Nazis, all those things that people say. We were also doing something because we believed in it. We were attempting, through our personal efforts, to make our country a safer and better place to live in. Individually, working on our separate patches of turf, we did too much good in our respective communities to be written off as mere aberration, whether social or sexual or psychological.
It was only when we got together that our problems really started....Dressing up in costume takes a very extreme personality, and the chances of eight such personalities getting along together were about seventy-eleven million to one against." ]]> 4.38 1987 Watchmen
author: Alan Moore
name: Madeline
average rating: 4.38
book published: 1987
rating: 4
read at: 2009/11/01
date added: 2009/11/17
shelves: science-fiction, the-list
review:
Two realizations occurred to me while reading this book:

1. The movie version, while long as hell, is actually really well done and accurate. And by "accurate" I of course mean "basically a frame-by-frame reproduction of the graphic novel." Not necessarily a bad thing, although they do change some details of the ending a little. I was okay with both versions, though. I think I still prefer the graphic novel, mostly because when I read it I don't have to deal with the horribly miscast Malin Ackerman. I knew she was ruining Silk Spectre II before I even read the original story. Every other character is perfectly cast, though, so it's mostly okay.

2. The movie The Incredibles is Watchmen for kids. For example, in excerpts from his book that are spaced throughout the graphic novel, a former superhero discusses his costume-making process: "I experimented with a cloak, remembering how the Shadow would use his cloak to misguide enemy bullets...In practice, however, I found it too unwieldy. I was always tripping over it or getting it caught in things, and so I abandoned it for an outfit that was as streamlined as I could make it."
Or, as Edna Mode would say, "NO CAPES!"

Movie references aside, I really liked all the technical details about being a superhero I'd never considered before (for example, how do they keep those little masks stuck to their faces? Spirit gum.), as well as the psychology of the superhero. That's really the whole point of Watchmen: the kind of people who are willing to put on a costume and fight crime may not be the kind of people you actually want to have running around beating up criminals. Case in point: Rorschach. I...I don't even have words to describe this character. The movie didn't even really do him justice.

In conclusion, amazing and thought-provoking and everyone should read it, even if you've never picked up a graphic novel before.

"Yes, we were crazy, we were kinky, we were Nazis, all those things that people say. We were also doing something because we believed in it. We were attempting, through our personal efforts, to make our country a safer and better place to live in. Individually, working on our separate patches of turf, we did too much good in our respective communities to be written off as mere aberration, whether social or sexual or psychological.
It was only when we got together that our problems really started....Dressing up in costume takes a very extreme personality, and the chances of eight such personalities getting along together were about seventy-eleven million to one against."
]]>