Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

141219: i read this because it is a formative romance of my father’s youth. so i read it in two ways, as text, as his interpretation. this is a long book. seems longer because of extensive descriptions, details, action not the least propulsive but qualified with outcome and, usually, protests against doing of or later talking of necessary violence. after the love-at-first-youthful-sight, there must be a hundred pages or more describing political/criminal domination of the those blackguard doones... interspersed with details of john ridd’s farm and family life...

this is a long book. i think of my father reading it, rural and right-thinking (but not slow-seeming) as john ridd, and how this could be an alternative image of women rather than his (confusingly artistic) sisters or (tragically ill) mother... and how, as he grew up, as he became scientist, this probably remained just his ideal. he met my mom. he once told me that he could see killing a man if he hurt my mom, and i think that is the sentiment here as well... for this may be long but is not complicated or empathetic to the antagonists: bad is bad, evil is evil, punishment is just, forgiveness is... up to the Big Guy...

so how is this ‘feministlit: well, this is kind of the Victorian idealized woman, that is, beautiful, warm, kind, gentle, giving, caring, loyal, beautiful... um, beautiful? (she knows how to be passive)

so how is this ‘masculinistlit: this is the Victorian idealized man, that is, big and strong, loyal to his betters, no intellect, natural honesty, generous, forgiving, loyal in love, big and strong... (he knows his place)

and religion?: i do not know enough about the religious conflicts of the time, as in historicity or wars...

and romantic?: well actually this kind of fades into the background, no matter how the narrator john says he will focus on it. does not really seem john and carver are ever in conflict, as lorna decides quite early, and the only act is rescuing her from captivity/threatened marriage...

why i like this more than most say dickens? not sure, but possibly because it is not urban. it is rural. it is few characters and simple motivations and plot, more like fable than tale. there are not so many characters that need be defined by quirks in act or speech (though the dialects are tiresome). very dry humor but not satire. and then, compared to modern work: i do not think i have tendency to reading about ‘bad� people... but the ‘good� herein are spotless ‘good� (modest about it too) and i guess if you want to read 800 pages you want to read about good people...? and i did read it in five long sittings...