I know I should be reading books I've never read before, but I decided I couldn't pack away Salman Rushdie's The Moor's Last Sigh without rereading it. I remembered it as my favorite Rushdie book, and it did not disappoint.
The Moor's Last Sigh follows a wealthy Indian house for four generations. They have made their money through the spice trade. They claim they are descendants from Vasco de Gama (from the wrong side of the sheets), and they are Catholic. The family is ruled by strong women and eventually, is destroyed by stronger/weaker men. There is no harmony in this family. They destroy one another, as if it were sport. The narrator of the story is the last of them, the Moor, and with his death comes the death of the family.
Epifania and her husband have two sons, Camoens and Aires. Epifania rules the household and Aires is her favorite. However, Aires and his wife, Carmen, are unable to produce children, mostly because Aires is gay and he and his wife never have sex. Camoens brings home a beautiful, strong-willed orphan, Isabella. While Epifania is trying to gain control of the business (her husband left her an allowance, but not the business upon his death) she ends up destroying the business and the family. Aires and Camoens are sent to prison (for allowing riots and such, this is during British rule) and while they are gone, Isabella takes over the business and the house. She builds the business back up and manages to establish some sort of peace within the house. However, she often neglects her only child, Aurora. Bella continues to keep control, even after the release of Camoens and Aires and eventually, she buys Aires 50% of the business. Unfortunately, she dies from lung cancer when Aurora is just 13 years old. Not long after that, her father takes a swim in the ocean that he had no intention of returning from.
During this time, Aurora has developed her artistic talents and has discovered she is indeed a wonderful painter. One night, while wandering around, she discovers her grandmother, Epifania, whom she blames for her mother's death, in the chapel and she suffers a stroke. She calmly sits down and watches her grandmother die. With her last breath, Epifania curses her granddaughter and her house. From this point on, it is Aurora's story.
At the age of 15, Aurora meets and instantly falls in love with Abraham Zogoiby, a Sepharic Jew who is 20 years her senior. No one will marry them, so they claim they are married and proceed to have 4 children. Abraham turns the family business into a vast network of black market activities, while Aurora concentrates on her artwork. The three girls they have are not so important to the story, but since their son, the Moor, is their narrator, he is very interesting.
The Moor was born after only 4 1/2 months in the womb. He was born with a club instead of a right hand and ages at twice the speed of normal people. Although the story is very interesting until this point, this is where it really takes off, with the man who is telling his own story. It is a story of twisted love, betrayal, hate, betrayal, more twisted love, and so many strange things that you don't know what to believe. In the end, having killed themselves off (or being killed by others) he is the only one left and he is running for his life.
This is a great book, and very different from The Satanic Verses. Rushdie is a master at creating a situation where one is willing to suspend disbelief. This is a book, where upon finishing, you still can't decide who you believe. Was it Abraham who killed Aurora, or one of her spurned lovers? Was the Moor's lover trying to kill him to destroy his mother, or was the poison meant for herself? Is anything as it seems? I'm glad I reread it before I packed it away.
Showing posts with label book review. Show all posts
Showing posts with label book review. Show all posts
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Monday, June 30, 2008
1 down, 99 to go
Ok, I don't really expect to read 100 books before the baby is born. Do I own 100 books that I have never read. Yes, yes I do. I do hope to get through at least a book a week though, which would get me to 20 (in addition to mommy books and such).
I just finished The Mayor of Casterbridge by Thomas Hardy. When I was 15 I read Tess of the d'Urbervilles which I just thought was spectacular (I actually remember telling Camille's mom all about this book). I mean, Tess is wronged, sexually, by a noble and it costs her her reputation and later, her husband. In the end of the book, she stabs the guy to death. STABS HIM TO DEATH!!!! Then she flees to Stonehenge, where she dies. How is that not a great book for a 15 year old girl? After reading that, I bought every Hardy book I came across. However, I never read any of them. Yes, a little strange, but then I went to college for 12 years (and three degrees).
Anyway, back to The Mayor. Other than the older English and the English dialogue, this is another great book. Michael Henchard gets drunk one night and sells his wife and young daughter. Fast forward 19 years, when his wife, after realizing the sale wasn't legally binding (and finding out that her "new" husband has died) returns to find Michael. Michael, disgusted with himself for what he had done, swore off alcohol, and turned his life around. His wife finds him to be one of the richest men in town and he has become mayor. Yet, alas, this is but the beginning of the story.
Although Michael has sworn off drinking, his personality and temper have not changed, and the rest of the book tells of his downfall due to both. This downfall involves a Scotsman, who he convinces to stay in town and work with him, an old lover, and his daughter, who turns out not to be his, but husband number 2's. Every action of Michael's becomes painful, as the reader realizes the dire consequences for his behavior. Like a horror film when you wonder, Why are you going into that room! In the end, he is able to do what is right, but it takes every last bit of energy and life he has.
The Mayor doesn't have the feminist appeal of Tess but Hardy's understanding of human character is amazing. He is a great writer and his characters are consistent. While I'm going to read a book by someone else now, I will return to the stack of Hardy books that I own.
I just finished The Mayor of Casterbridge by Thomas Hardy. When I was 15 I read Tess of the d'Urbervilles which I just thought was spectacular (I actually remember telling Camille's mom all about this book). I mean, Tess is wronged, sexually, by a noble and it costs her her reputation and later, her husband. In the end of the book, she stabs the guy to death. STABS HIM TO DEATH!!!! Then she flees to Stonehenge, where she dies. How is that not a great book for a 15 year old girl? After reading that, I bought every Hardy book I came across. However, I never read any of them. Yes, a little strange, but then I went to college for 12 years (and three degrees).
Anyway, back to The Mayor. Other than the older English and the English dialogue, this is another great book. Michael Henchard gets drunk one night and sells his wife and young daughter. Fast forward 19 years, when his wife, after realizing the sale wasn't legally binding (and finding out that her "new" husband has died) returns to find Michael. Michael, disgusted with himself for what he had done, swore off alcohol, and turned his life around. His wife finds him to be one of the richest men in town and he has become mayor. Yet, alas, this is but the beginning of the story.
Although Michael has sworn off drinking, his personality and temper have not changed, and the rest of the book tells of his downfall due to both. This downfall involves a Scotsman, who he convinces to stay in town and work with him, an old lover, and his daughter, who turns out not to be his, but husband number 2's. Every action of Michael's becomes painful, as the reader realizes the dire consequences for his behavior. Like a horror film when you wonder, Why are you going into that room! In the end, he is able to do what is right, but it takes every last bit of energy and life he has.
The Mayor doesn't have the feminist appeal of Tess but Hardy's understanding of human character is amazing. He is a great writer and his characters are consistent. While I'm going to read a book by someone else now, I will return to the stack of Hardy books that I own.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Not for all times
This past week I read the Soviet novel Not by Bread Alone by Vladimir Dudintsev. The book was published in 1956, after the death and denouncement of Stalin's terror. The front cover claims, "The novel that rocked the Soviet Union." I certainly see why it rocked the Soviet Union. Let's start with a little history.
Due to the totalitarianism of the Party of the Soviet Union (most people didn't realize that the Party ran everything, the government just fulfilled the Party's wishes), most people assumed that the State was the most important entity in the Soviet Union. However, this is totally against Party ideology. Society, the collective, the group, was the most important and it was the job if the Party to protect society, the collective, the group from bad stuff, most notably, the individualistic desires of the capitalistic bourgeoisie. Unfortunately, this "job" became institutionalized and bureaucratized to the point of detriment. This is the topic of Not by Bread Alone.
The main character, Lopatkin, starts as a school teacher, but he soon realizes that the local pipe factory is using a wasteful method of casting pipes. Yet, it is this same method that all pipe casting machines are using throughout the USSR. He quickly comes up with a better method, however, the local factory cannot attempt it without the approval of the Moscow Ministry of whoever casts pipes. However, this ministry is dominated by an older inventor, who is also looking for a better way, and thus, Lopatkin is silenced. He refuses to give up though, and over the next 8 years he continues improving his machine and continues writing letters and meets people and moves to Moscow. He also "steals" the wife of his chief bureaucrat who is holding him up, because this person too is working with a group making pipes from a similar design as Lopatkin. Actually, they stole it from him.
Why don't they want Lopatkin's pipe casting machine if it will save time and money? Quite simply, he is an individual who worked on his machine with maybe one or two people, while they are an organization, who had tens, if not hundreds, of people working on their machine (which still failed). In the end, Lopatkin succeeds and everyone else fails. Why? Because Lopatkin, although an individual, is working for the greater good of society, while all the bureaucrats are only working for the greater good of themselves and their retirement checks. So although he is not a collective, because he is the only one truly working for the collective, he wins.
I understand why this would have rocked the USSR. Here is a writer pointing out how the ideology had been turned on its head, how the Party had become the individual and how a non-party individual had wanted something for the collective. However, a wonderfully written novel for all times, it is not. It's too technical. Pages and pages of notes about pipe casting and iron quality and where to put valves and equations. Pages and pages of letter writing and complaining and inventing. And the Soviet Union has collapsed now. Why? Because we know that the Party did win, not the individual, and finally society realized the Party didn't have their best interest in mind, and got rid of it. Do I think this book should be disposed of as well? HELL NO!!!!
This book would make a great read in a graduate level course, perhaps as a companion piece to The Ghost of the Executed Engineer by Loren R. Graham. Graham's work is very short and a pretty easy read. The book discusses the fate of technology in the Soviet Union, starting with the Bolshevik Revolution and the difficulty of creating a new, industrially advanced society using engineers trained in a capitalistic society. Graham shows how the decisions of the first decade really affected the technology of the entire Soviet Union. I think these two books would work really well together and together give students a feel for the state of technology in the Soviet Union.
While I don't think Not by Bread Alone is a spectacular novel, written for any audience, I do think it is an amazing book. I applaud Vladimir Dudintsev's courage for writing such a book (it would have been published during the thaw, but even in the USSR, these things were short and one never knew when the current would turn). The book helped me more fully understand the process of bureaucratization in the Soviet Union and the struggles of those individuals who wanted what was best for society.
Due to the totalitarianism of the Party of the Soviet Union (most people didn't realize that the Party ran everything, the government just fulfilled the Party's wishes), most people assumed that the State was the most important entity in the Soviet Union. However, this is totally against Party ideology. Society, the collective, the group, was the most important and it was the job if the Party to protect society, the collective, the group from bad stuff, most notably, the individualistic desires of the capitalistic bourgeoisie. Unfortunately, this "job" became institutionalized and bureaucratized to the point of detriment. This is the topic of Not by Bread Alone.
The main character, Lopatkin, starts as a school teacher, but he soon realizes that the local pipe factory is using a wasteful method of casting pipes. Yet, it is this same method that all pipe casting machines are using throughout the USSR. He quickly comes up with a better method, however, the local factory cannot attempt it without the approval of the Moscow Ministry of whoever casts pipes. However, this ministry is dominated by an older inventor, who is also looking for a better way, and thus, Lopatkin is silenced. He refuses to give up though, and over the next 8 years he continues improving his machine and continues writing letters and meets people and moves to Moscow. He also "steals" the wife of his chief bureaucrat who is holding him up, because this person too is working with a group making pipes from a similar design as Lopatkin. Actually, they stole it from him.
Why don't they want Lopatkin's pipe casting machine if it will save time and money? Quite simply, he is an individual who worked on his machine with maybe one or two people, while they are an organization, who had tens, if not hundreds, of people working on their machine (which still failed). In the end, Lopatkin succeeds and everyone else fails. Why? Because Lopatkin, although an individual, is working for the greater good of society, while all the bureaucrats are only working for the greater good of themselves and their retirement checks. So although he is not a collective, because he is the only one truly working for the collective, he wins.
I understand why this would have rocked the USSR. Here is a writer pointing out how the ideology had been turned on its head, how the Party had become the individual and how a non-party individual had wanted something for the collective. However, a wonderfully written novel for all times, it is not. It's too technical. Pages and pages of notes about pipe casting and iron quality and where to put valves and equations. Pages and pages of letter writing and complaining and inventing. And the Soviet Union has collapsed now. Why? Because we know that the Party did win, not the individual, and finally society realized the Party didn't have their best interest in mind, and got rid of it. Do I think this book should be disposed of as well? HELL NO!!!!
This book would make a great read in a graduate level course, perhaps as a companion piece to The Ghost of the Executed Engineer by Loren R. Graham. Graham's work is very short and a pretty easy read. The book discusses the fate of technology in the Soviet Union, starting with the Bolshevik Revolution and the difficulty of creating a new, industrially advanced society using engineers trained in a capitalistic society. Graham shows how the decisions of the first decade really affected the technology of the entire Soviet Union. I think these two books would work really well together and together give students a feel for the state of technology in the Soviet Union.
While I don't think Not by Bread Alone is a spectacular novel, written for any audience, I do think it is an amazing book. I applaud Vladimir Dudintsev's courage for writing such a book (it would have been published during the thaw, but even in the USSR, these things were short and one never knew when the current would turn). The book helped me more fully understand the process of bureaucratization in the Soviet Union and the struggles of those individuals who wanted what was best for society.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Tragedy was never so funny
I told you I was reading as much as possible. On Sunday, I decided I needed to start a new book, but I wanted something light and funny. I chose Augusten Burroughs Dry, because sobriety is always light and funny. His name might sound familiar because his first book, Running with Scissors was turned into a rather good movie a couple of years ago. I read Running with Scissors, and it was hilarious and the most disturbing book I had ever read, all because these are true books. I will briefly fill you in on the story from Running with Scissors because it plays a very important part in Dry.
Augusten Burroughs' dad was an alcoholic and his mom was a, well, she was crazy. His parents eventually split up and at the age of 12 or so, his mom gives him to her shrink. The shrink believes that after the age of 13, people are adults and can make their own choices, so his kids are allowed to run wild. Augusten doesn't attend school, has access to medication and is raped, and then has a "relationship" with a pedophile who lives out back (Augusten is gay, but it's clear that this sexual relationship did not begin consensually, not to mention that he was 13 at the time and the guy was something like 30). Again, this is a true story. Needless to say, Augusten did not have a typical American childhood.
When he was 18 or 19, he set off for New York city and managed to get a job in advertising. This is where Dry picks up. Dry is about his alcoholism and his fight for sobriety. And after reading with Running with Scissors, I kept thinking, "this guy could be a psychopath, killing and raping, or doing super-duper hard core drugs, or something even worse." He really is quite normal for his upbringing. But it does haunt him. His choice of self-medication is alcohol, but we quickly find out that even though he is in his mid-twenties, he is already in the final stages of alcoholism. He is forced into a 30 day rehab by his job, and while he hates it at first, he eventually realizes it is what's best for him. This is the first part of the book.
The second part of the book begins with his return to New York and the difficulty of staying sober. Add to that the jerk at work who is jealous and leaves alcohol around his office, the incredibly hot crack addict at group therapy who is in love with him, and the fact that his best friend has HIV (and eventually dies).
Despite the grim subject, Burroughs is an amazing writer. I often found myself laughing out loud, and sometimes, crying. I'm pretty sure he's written another book, about him and his dad, and I need to go find it. While I would recommend Dry I would really recommend reading Running with Scissors first. You will feel guilty for enjoying it so much, but Burroughs is such a talented writer that you can't help it.
So here's to Augusten Burroughs. May you find love and happiness. May you stay sober. My you write many more books and may you always remember that you are somebody!
Augusten Burroughs' dad was an alcoholic and his mom was a, well, she was crazy. His parents eventually split up and at the age of 12 or so, his mom gives him to her shrink. The shrink believes that after the age of 13, people are adults and can make their own choices, so his kids are allowed to run wild. Augusten doesn't attend school, has access to medication and is raped, and then has a "relationship" with a pedophile who lives out back (Augusten is gay, but it's clear that this sexual relationship did not begin consensually, not to mention that he was 13 at the time and the guy was something like 30). Again, this is a true story. Needless to say, Augusten did not have a typical American childhood.
When he was 18 or 19, he set off for New York city and managed to get a job in advertising. This is where Dry picks up. Dry is about his alcoholism and his fight for sobriety. And after reading with Running with Scissors, I kept thinking, "this guy could be a psychopath, killing and raping, or doing super-duper hard core drugs, or something even worse." He really is quite normal for his upbringing. But it does haunt him. His choice of self-medication is alcohol, but we quickly find out that even though he is in his mid-twenties, he is already in the final stages of alcoholism. He is forced into a 30 day rehab by his job, and while he hates it at first, he eventually realizes it is what's best for him. This is the first part of the book.
The second part of the book begins with his return to New York and the difficulty of staying sober. Add to that the jerk at work who is jealous and leaves alcohol around his office, the incredibly hot crack addict at group therapy who is in love with him, and the fact that his best friend has HIV (and eventually dies).
Despite the grim subject, Burroughs is an amazing writer. I often found myself laughing out loud, and sometimes, crying. I'm pretty sure he's written another book, about him and his dad, and I need to go find it. While I would recommend Dry I would really recommend reading Running with Scissors first. You will feel guilty for enjoying it so much, but Burroughs is such a talented writer that you can't help it.
So here's to Augusten Burroughs. May you find love and happiness. May you stay sober. My you write many more books and may you always remember that you are somebody!
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Revenge. . . French style
I've been trying to read as much as possible, since everyone tells me I'll be too tired to read once I have this baby. I try to get a good mix of contemporary with classic, mostly so I can pack up only the books I have read and have room to leave the rest out. This last week, Balzac caught my eye. I had never read Balzac, and yet the book was claiming him as a genius (I'm pretty sure I had heard this somewhere else, as well). So I picked up Cousin Bette.
Cousin Bette is a poor, peasant relation, much uglier than her beautiful cousin who married a French nobleman (presumably, with money). However, Adeline's husband had a very bad habit that involved, much younger and prettier, and much more expensive, women. I have to admit, the plot seemed a bit thin to me. Bette is jealous because her cousin married up, then called her to Paris and gave her money to set up her own shop and tried to get her married. Um, yeah, I can see why she would be jealous. However, Adeline's young, and also beautiful, daughter, does steal the man Bette is in love with. This gives her justification to try to ruin this family. And she almost succeeds. She becomes best friends with Adeline's husband's current tart and they plot to destroy the family morally, financially, and reputationally (is that a word?). They do manage to bring the family down, but there is enough good in the family to overcome (except for the husband, who disappears). Bette dies bitter that she was unable to achieve her life goal. Ironically, the husband reappears and, while not finishing her work, does achieve to destroy his wife. So there you go, a simple tale of revenge.
However, upon closer reading (or just reading every line) one quickly realizes that this story is about the fall of the old French Empire and its nobility and the rise of the (classless) middle class (the book takes place in the 1840s). A little French history makes this story of revenge and its moral more clear. The newly rich little tarts are painted horribly, but not as bad as the old nobility who pay dearly for their youth, beauty, sex and their rich lifestyles. Cousin Bette does not succeed in revenge because she has aligned herself against the old nobility. Adeline's husband is destructive because he lacks the morals he should have as a noble.
The book is very readable, but I think it would make better reading for a French history class, rather than a literature class. The book really is more about a time period, than human nature, but is valuable as such. Next week, something more contemporary!
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Too early!!!
So thanks to everyone for the congratulations. I was going to type up something witty and cute, but pregnancy has sucked all the life out of me and left me tired and scatterbrained. We are very excited and it is starting to seem real now that everyone knows. My appointment is this afternoon, and I was going to try to wait until after that to post, but. . . .
IQ's water broke and she is in labor. She is not due until May 19th, and we expected her to be early, but not this early. She hasn't even ordered the video camera yet (her husband is on a ship and won't be back until June). And my video camera is with my husband (which is ok, because to be honest, I did not want to have to video that). She has another friend with her right now, and then I will go to the hospital after my appointment. Hopefully (please, please God), her labor will be short. And thankfully, I'm going to Texas next week for 12 days, so I'll get a break from helping her taking care of her baby. Oh boy, this is going to be an adventure. And our children are never, ever going to play with one another (if I get my way).
My wireless is fixed!!! YAY!!!! And I got to talk to my husband. And I'll get to talk to him again tonight. That makes me happy.
I wrote a great book review about Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses but blogger ate it. So, go read anything by Rushdie (except The Ground Beneath her Feet, which I didn't like).
Ok, I suppose I should clean a little and shower and pack a bag to go to the hospital. Pray that everything is ok. IQ is kind of a wimp (she doesn't even have her ears pierced).
IQ's water broke and she is in labor. She is not due until May 19th, and we expected her to be early, but not this early. She hasn't even ordered the video camera yet (her husband is on a ship and won't be back until June). And my video camera is with my husband (which is ok, because to be honest, I did not want to have to video that). She has another friend with her right now, and then I will go to the hospital after my appointment. Hopefully (please, please God), her labor will be short. And thankfully, I'm going to Texas next week for 12 days, so I'll get a break from helping her taking care of her baby. Oh boy, this is going to be an adventure. And our children are never, ever going to play with one another (if I get my way).
My wireless is fixed!!! YAY!!!! And I got to talk to my husband. And I'll get to talk to him again tonight. That makes me happy.
I wrote a great book review about Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses but blogger ate it. So, go read anything by Rushdie (except The Ground Beneath her Feet, which I didn't like).
Ok, I suppose I should clean a little and shower and pack a bag to go to the hospital. Pray that everything is ok. IQ is kind of a wimp (she doesn't even have her ears pierced).
Monday, February 25, 2008
Misfortune
I realize that I really like most of the books I read. The problem with this is that after giving glowing reviews to good, and even great work, I have a hard time convincing people when I've read something truly magnificent. I have just read something truly magnificent. Amazingly magnificent. Unbelievably magnificent. Enchantingly magnificent.
I have just read Misfortune by Wesley Stace. Not only is this novel magnificent, it was also Stace's debut novel. He now has a life-long devoted fan. Misfortune takes place in England in the 1800's. A baby, taken from a dying mother during a botched abortion, is left on a trash heap to die. She is picked up by a very rich lord and adopted as the next heir and named Rose. Only, she is a he. Her father, terribly missing his sister, who died at age 5, ignores the baby's genitalia. Her mother, the librarian her father married in order to make her look legitimate (and not adopted) is a fan of an early feminisia poet, named Mary Day, and looks upon this as an experiment to show that gender is a social construct. In the wings, a horrible family, who needs the family fortune which will one day belong to Rose. Only her true identity is discovered, by both herself and her family and things become terribly complicated.
When I picked up this book I thought it would be an adventure book, the story of someone figuring out who they are. However, I was unprepared for the dignity, respect and insight Stace gives the character of Rose. Stace does not acknowledge reading Foucault's The History of Sexuality, but Rose's internal struggle often mirrored that story (The History of Sexuality revolves around the diary of a hermaphrodite in 19th century (maybe 18th) France who eventually kills him/herself because he/she feels alienated, not only from society, but from him/herself). Rose's self-discovery, self-hatred and eventually, self-acceptance are lovingly told. Rose is not someone who should be shunned, but someone who should be admired for the way in which she learns to love and accept who she truly is.
The story itself is remarkable. Once it is discovered that Rose is a he, it is also discovered that she is a bastard, and therefore, not the legitimate heir of the family fortune. At this point, I became a tad bit disappointed because I felt a Tom Jones (the book, not the singer) ending coming. However, Stace threw in such a delightful twist, that I did not mind at all. Although this book is 500 pages, it flew by and I can't wait to pick up Stace's latest book.
Misfortune should be a must read for anyone who has felt like they didn't fit in their own skin. I figure that all of us have felt like that at one time or another. I definitely think this book should be required reading for gender study courses. Stace is an incredibly talented man and I look forward to reading him for years to come.
I have just read Misfortune by Wesley Stace. Not only is this novel magnificent, it was also Stace's debut novel. He now has a life-long devoted fan. Misfortune takes place in England in the 1800's. A baby, taken from a dying mother during a botched abortion, is left on a trash heap to die. She is picked up by a very rich lord and adopted as the next heir and named Rose. Only, she is a he. Her father, terribly missing his sister, who died at age 5, ignores the baby's genitalia. Her mother, the librarian her father married in order to make her look legitimate (and not adopted) is a fan of an early feminisia poet, named Mary Day, and looks upon this as an experiment to show that gender is a social construct. In the wings, a horrible family, who needs the family fortune which will one day belong to Rose. Only her true identity is discovered, by both herself and her family and things become terribly complicated.
When I picked up this book I thought it would be an adventure book, the story of someone figuring out who they are. However, I was unprepared for the dignity, respect and insight Stace gives the character of Rose. Stace does not acknowledge reading Foucault's The History of Sexuality, but Rose's internal struggle often mirrored that story (The History of Sexuality revolves around the diary of a hermaphrodite in 19th century (maybe 18th) France who eventually kills him/herself because he/she feels alienated, not only from society, but from him/herself). Rose's self-discovery, self-hatred and eventually, self-acceptance are lovingly told. Rose is not someone who should be shunned, but someone who should be admired for the way in which she learns to love and accept who she truly is.
The story itself is remarkable. Once it is discovered that Rose is a he, it is also discovered that she is a bastard, and therefore, not the legitimate heir of the family fortune. At this point, I became a tad bit disappointed because I felt a Tom Jones (the book, not the singer) ending coming. However, Stace threw in such a delightful twist, that I did not mind at all. Although this book is 500 pages, it flew by and I can't wait to pick up Stace's latest book.
Misfortune should be a must read for anyone who has felt like they didn't fit in their own skin. I figure that all of us have felt like that at one time or another. I definitely think this book should be required reading for gender study courses. Stace is an incredibly talented man and I look forward to reading him for years to come.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Back to reality
After the kidnapping, robbery, marriage, bombs, beatings, drug addiction and blackmailing of the last book I read, I decided I needed something more realistic. I read The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien. I missed out on reading Tolkien when I was a kid. I read the Chronicles of Narnia but that was the extent of my fantasy reading. My husband loves Tolkien, so I thought I'd give it a spin. Boy, did I miss out! I loved this book! While I felt like the book would be a great kid's book, I didn't feel like I was reading a kid's book. I would recommend this book to anyone.
The story itself is rather simple. A stay-at-home type of hobbit decides it's time for an adventure and joins thirteen dwarves in trying to reclaim their gold from a dragon. While the story is simple, the writing is amazing. Tolkien's writing is clear and simple itself, but it is also interesting. When a character mentions other stories or adventures, as a reader, I just went, yes, yes, tell me about that, I want to know! I could have read this story forever, instead, it was so well written, it took about three days. I now declare myself a Tolkien fan and will read the rest of his work. I also look forward to getting Wes's kids to read them and hopefully, someday, my own kids.
During the time when I couldn't hide in middle earth, Wes's dad was here all week and I worked quite a bit. There's nothing romantic about having a valentine's dinner with your father-in-law and your husband. Now, everyone is gone, the house is a mess, and I'm still working a lot. Again, it will be a miracle if a baby was conceived this month (ok, I mean in this house, not in the general public). If you think having your father-in-law at your valentine's dinner isn't romantic, think about having sex with him sleeping directly underneath your bedroom. Oh yeah, let the sexy times roll.
The story itself is rather simple. A stay-at-home type of hobbit decides it's time for an adventure and joins thirteen dwarves in trying to reclaim their gold from a dragon. While the story is simple, the writing is amazing. Tolkien's writing is clear and simple itself, but it is also interesting. When a character mentions other stories or adventures, as a reader, I just went, yes, yes, tell me about that, I want to know! I could have read this story forever, instead, it was so well written, it took about three days. I now declare myself a Tolkien fan and will read the rest of his work. I also look forward to getting Wes's kids to read them and hopefully, someday, my own kids.
During the time when I couldn't hide in middle earth, Wes's dad was here all week and I worked quite a bit. There's nothing romantic about having a valentine's dinner with your father-in-law and your husband. Now, everyone is gone, the house is a mess, and I'm still working a lot. Again, it will be a miracle if a baby was conceived this month (ok, I mean in this house, not in the general public). If you think having your father-in-law at your valentine's dinner isn't romantic, think about having sex with him sleeping directly underneath your bedroom. Oh yeah, let the sexy times roll.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The Russian Concubine
A friend sent me this book, The Russian Concubine by Kate Furnivall, because it kind of reminded her of our trip to Russia. She did mention that it was not "serious" literature, but a good, easy read. Since I had just finished reading a book, I thought, why not?
In this book, a family of Russians flee the Bolshevik revolution. They travel to China, but along the way, they are stopped by Bolsheviks and the husband is killed. The mom, Valentina and her daughter, Lydia, make it to China, but have no money, no passport and no way to provide for themselves. Lydia, a beautiful, willful red-head, becomes a thief to help support them, and during one of her "bussiness trips" into the Chinese portion of the town (as opposed to the part practically owned by the British) she almost gets kidnapped and sold into prostitution, only to be saved by a Chinese communist, Chang An Lo. Eventually, they fall in love and as you can imagine, chaos rules.
I love the character of Lydia. She is beautifully and lovingly drawn. She has fire and depth. She alone makes this novel worth reading. The other characters are also done rather well, but I felt like the author had a checklist:
Corrupt British bureaucrat who beats and cheats on his wife. Check.
Well-meaning British school teacher who has a Chinese lover, has gone native and eventually succumbs to the drug, opium, that destroyed his family. Check.
Russian mom who has to whore herself out, albeit in a upper-class fashion, to survive and marries the first rich, nice British guy who asks. Check.
Powerful Chinese warlord who controlls the opium trade and is very rich, ruthless and violent. Check.
You get the picture. In addition, the last half of the book could easily be a script for a soap opera, and that's not a compliment. Yes, I know this is a novel, meaning, it is not real, but please, this crossed the border from incredulous to how stupid do you think I am. The author might of well have put a cape on Lydia and Chang An Lo and declared them superheroes, for all they went through.
Overall, I would not recommend this book. While the characters are written beautifully, the story itself defies logic. The best thing about this book: it gave me a great idea for a research project. What did happen to the Russians who had to flee to China? But other than that, this book was not worth the time.
When is blogger going to fix spell-check?
In this book, a family of Russians flee the Bolshevik revolution. They travel to China, but along the way, they are stopped by Bolsheviks and the husband is killed. The mom, Valentina and her daughter, Lydia, make it to China, but have no money, no passport and no way to provide for themselves. Lydia, a beautiful, willful red-head, becomes a thief to help support them, and during one of her "bussiness trips" into the Chinese portion of the town (as opposed to the part practically owned by the British) she almost gets kidnapped and sold into prostitution, only to be saved by a Chinese communist, Chang An Lo. Eventually, they fall in love and as you can imagine, chaos rules.
I love the character of Lydia. She is beautifully and lovingly drawn. She has fire and depth. She alone makes this novel worth reading. The other characters are also done rather well, but I felt like the author had a checklist:
Corrupt British bureaucrat who beats and cheats on his wife. Check.
Well-meaning British school teacher who has a Chinese lover, has gone native and eventually succumbs to the drug, opium, that destroyed his family. Check.
Russian mom who has to whore herself out, albeit in a upper-class fashion, to survive and marries the first rich, nice British guy who asks. Check.
Powerful Chinese warlord who controlls the opium trade and is very rich, ruthless and violent. Check.
You get the picture. In addition, the last half of the book could easily be a script for a soap opera, and that's not a compliment. Yes, I know this is a novel, meaning, it is not real, but please, this crossed the border from incredulous to how stupid do you think I am. The author might of well have put a cape on Lydia and Chang An Lo and declared them superheroes, for all they went through.
Overall, I would not recommend this book. While the characters are written beautifully, the story itself defies logic. The best thing about this book: it gave me a great idea for a research project. What did happen to the Russians who had to flee to China? But other than that, this book was not worth the time.
When is blogger going to fix spell-check?
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Gather 'round!
I love reading "modern" novels, but let's face it, they don't always make one think. Although I love Dostoyevsky (yes, there are about a dozen ways to spell that), and I have read all his major work, I haven't really delved into his minor work. This week, I took on some of the minor work, and once again, Dostoyevsky proves to be brilliant (and better than Tolstoy).
I started with The Gambler. The title should be self-explanatory. However, the novella is more than half over before you are completely confidant that you know exactly to whom the title refers. Every character is this story is a gambler, some, in the casino, all in life. The story itself leaves many questions: who are these people, what is their problem and why do they think money will solve it, and do people really act like that? Yes, yes, desparate people act like that. One of the best scenes in the book occurs when the invalid 75 year old aunt becomes addicted to the roulette wheel, betting her fortune on winning everything back. If you want to know how a gambler feels, this book is for you. Time slows down, senses are heightened and you feel completely high and in control and yet you know you aren't in control. It is an amazing and quick read.
Next up was the very short story Bobok. A journalist, who fears he is going crazy, keeps repeating the nonsense word, bobok. The surprising thing is not what this means, how he found out what it means, but rather, the fact that the meaning does not disturb him. A very short, but interesting story.
Finally, I read A Nasty Story. This story is very reminiscant of Gogol. A Russian general (not in the army, but in rank of the civil service: it's a long story) gets drunk, wanders through the streets of St. Petersburg and ends up inviting himself to the wedding of an insubordinate. He does this to prove how much he loves 'humanity'. At this time, Russia was very divided into classes, and those 'forward thinking' wanting to prove that they accepted everybody as equal, but only if shown the correct amount of respect. The general gets disgustingly drunk (he's not normally a drinker) and disgraces himself and ruins the wedding. This story, while amusing, is also an excellent social commentary that still applies today. I'm thinking of those rich people who very loudly voice their support of equality and then get mad when the poverty stricken don't praise them for their generosity (you know who I'm talking about). This story clearly reveals what asses these people really are.
Thus, Dostoyevsky is still my hero and I love him. Read anything by him today.
Tonight my husband returns home, for six whole hours, before he leaves again and returns on Saturday morning. What? you ask, I though he was supposed to be home all this week. Why yes, yes he was, but after seeing him for 9 whole days over the last month, I was so sick of him, that I sent him away again. Ok, really. The ship is here, but there was some stupid conference in Florida that my husband wasn't even supposed to go to, but they needed a competant and responsible guy to go. They chose my husband. Stupid competant and responsible husband. So I haven't seen him since Sunday (when he was really sick, he's better now, thank God). I will pick him up at the airport tonight at 11:00pm. He will go to work at 6:00am. I won't see him again until Saturday. The ship leaves again on Monday morning. If I end up having a baby, it will be a miracle.
I started with The Gambler. The title should be self-explanatory. However, the novella is more than half over before you are completely confidant that you know exactly to whom the title refers. Every character is this story is a gambler, some, in the casino, all in life. The story itself leaves many questions: who are these people, what is their problem and why do they think money will solve it, and do people really act like that? Yes, yes, desparate people act like that. One of the best scenes in the book occurs when the invalid 75 year old aunt becomes addicted to the roulette wheel, betting her fortune on winning everything back. If you want to know how a gambler feels, this book is for you. Time slows down, senses are heightened and you feel completely high and in control and yet you know you aren't in control. It is an amazing and quick read.
Next up was the very short story Bobok. A journalist, who fears he is going crazy, keeps repeating the nonsense word, bobok. The surprising thing is not what this means, how he found out what it means, but rather, the fact that the meaning does not disturb him. A very short, but interesting story.
Finally, I read A Nasty Story. This story is very reminiscant of Gogol. A Russian general (not in the army, but in rank of the civil service: it's a long story) gets drunk, wanders through the streets of St. Petersburg and ends up inviting himself to the wedding of an insubordinate. He does this to prove how much he loves 'humanity'. At this time, Russia was very divided into classes, and those 'forward thinking' wanting to prove that they accepted everybody as equal, but only if shown the correct amount of respect. The general gets disgustingly drunk (he's not normally a drinker) and disgraces himself and ruins the wedding. This story, while amusing, is also an excellent social commentary that still applies today. I'm thinking of those rich people who very loudly voice their support of equality and then get mad when the poverty stricken don't praise them for their generosity (you know who I'm talking about). This story clearly reveals what asses these people really are.
Thus, Dostoyevsky is still my hero and I love him. Read anything by him today.
Tonight my husband returns home, for six whole hours, before he leaves again and returns on Saturday morning. What? you ask, I though he was supposed to be home all this week. Why yes, yes he was, but after seeing him for 9 whole days over the last month, I was so sick of him, that I sent him away again. Ok, really. The ship is here, but there was some stupid conference in Florida that my husband wasn't even supposed to go to, but they needed a competant and responsible guy to go. They chose my husband. Stupid competant and responsible husband. So I haven't seen him since Sunday (when he was really sick, he's better now, thank God). I will pick him up at the airport tonight at 11:00pm. He will go to work at 6:00am. I won't see him again until Saturday. The ship leaves again on Monday morning. If I end up having a baby, it will be a miracle.
Monday, January 14, 2008
The Memory Keeper's Daughter
While visiting my family over Christmas, I noticed my aunt was reading The Memory Keeper's Daughter by Kim Edwards. The book looked familiar, but I couldn't place it. She said the book was good. When I returned home, I needed to pick out a new book to read. Imagine my surprise when I found The Memory Keeper's Daughter on one of my bookshelves. No wonder it looked familiar. I considered it a sign, and read the book.
The book was amazing, the story original, and heartbreaking. In 1964, a doctor is forced by a blizzard to deliver his own baby. Only, it was two babies. The first baby was a perfect baby boy. The second, a girl, with Downs syndrome. Due to factors in his past, the doctor, David, believes it is in his wife's best interest to immediately take the girl, Phoebe, to an institution. He asks the only other person there, the nurse, Caroline, to do this for him. Only, when she gets to the institution, she realizes she can't leave the girl there. Upon her return to town, she discovers that David has told his wife, Norah, that Phoebe was stillborn. Caroline leaves the area and raises Phoebe on her own, eventually marrying. David's decision haunts all their lives, and his son's, Paul.
The book is written from the perspective of the main characters, David, Norah and Caroline, and once he is older, Paul. This is what makes the book so wonderful. From the description of the book, as a woman, all I could think is, "how could he?" but after hearing his story, in his words, you understand why David did what he did, and you hurt for him. He wants to do the right thing. He thought he was doing the right thing. But this, this he did wrong, and he spends the rest of his life trying to find a way to fix it. Norah quickly falls into a depression after the birth. While you feel for her, I think Norah is probably the weakest character in the book. I never understood where she was coming from, in regards to her personality before the babies, and when she finally reaches for "independence" it felt forced. Caroline grew the most as a person. Her life moves in unexpected directions because of Phoebe, and I liked her more than Norah. Paul was drawn so well that I just wanted to hug him.
The book is wonderful and readable and sad and happy and hopeful and hopeless. My main complaint is a rather strange one. Every single main character's parents died while they were all young. Now, I know people lose their parents at a young age: my husband was 24 when his mom died. However, what are the chances that three people, who meet by chance, would all have lost their parents at a young age. I know this was important to the plot, to a certain extent, since they were all formed by these early deaths, but still, there are other plot devices that could have achieved the same end without all the drama.
I would highly recommend this book. Believe it or not, but it actually had a happy ending. Well, at least the happiest ending possible. Go get it today, or just check your bookshelves.
The book was amazing, the story original, and heartbreaking. In 1964, a doctor is forced by a blizzard to deliver his own baby. Only, it was two babies. The first baby was a perfect baby boy. The second, a girl, with Downs syndrome. Due to factors in his past, the doctor, David, believes it is in his wife's best interest to immediately take the girl, Phoebe, to an institution. He asks the only other person there, the nurse, Caroline, to do this for him. Only, when she gets to the institution, she realizes she can't leave the girl there. Upon her return to town, she discovers that David has told his wife, Norah, that Phoebe was stillborn. Caroline leaves the area and raises Phoebe on her own, eventually marrying. David's decision haunts all their lives, and his son's, Paul.
The book is written from the perspective of the main characters, David, Norah and Caroline, and once he is older, Paul. This is what makes the book so wonderful. From the description of the book, as a woman, all I could think is, "how could he?" but after hearing his story, in his words, you understand why David did what he did, and you hurt for him. He wants to do the right thing. He thought he was doing the right thing. But this, this he did wrong, and he spends the rest of his life trying to find a way to fix it. Norah quickly falls into a depression after the birth. While you feel for her, I think Norah is probably the weakest character in the book. I never understood where she was coming from, in regards to her personality before the babies, and when she finally reaches for "independence" it felt forced. Caroline grew the most as a person. Her life moves in unexpected directions because of Phoebe, and I liked her more than Norah. Paul was drawn so well that I just wanted to hug him.
The book is wonderful and readable and sad and happy and hopeful and hopeless. My main complaint is a rather strange one. Every single main character's parents died while they were all young. Now, I know people lose their parents at a young age: my husband was 24 when his mom died. However, what are the chances that three people, who meet by chance, would all have lost their parents at a young age. I know this was important to the plot, to a certain extent, since they were all formed by these early deaths, but still, there are other plot devices that could have achieved the same end without all the drama.
I would highly recommend this book. Believe it or not, but it actually had a happy ending. Well, at least the happiest ending possible. Go get it today, or just check your bookshelves.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Fortune's Rocks
I had three days break in between the children's visits. I read a book. I will now review that book, because I have not yet downloaded the pictures from the awesome past week with my parents and kids.
I read Fortune's Rocks by Anita Shreve. This is a very poignant book about love, love lost, and the sacrifices we make for those we love. The book's central character, Olympia, age fifteen, lives in the final days of the 19th century. One summer, when with her parents at their summer home in Fortune's Rocks, she begins an affair with her father's close friend and associate, a man who is almost three times her age and married with four children. Their relationship is a loving and passionate one. Unfortunately, they are caught red-handed, at her 16th birthday party, no less, by his wife. Several months later, Olympia discovers she is pregnant.
This first part of the book causes quite the moral quandary. He is married and she is still a child, yet the story is so well written that you can feel their love through the pages. It is not based on physical desire alone, in fact, their intense physical passion results from their intellectual understanding of one another (she is incredibly well educated for a woman). After their child is born, he is taken away, where, she has no clue. She doesn't know if her lover even knew of her pregnancy. She suffers this loss intensely and spends the next four years trying to make up for the intense disappointment she has become to her parents. But she never repents of her actions. She wishes she could undo the hurt caused to everyone, but she cannot convince herself that the love she felt was, or ever would be, wrong. After four years of exile, she feels that she has lost herself and returns to Fortune's Rocks, by herself, to heal.
While in Fortune's Rocks she discovers that her son is there, that her lover placed him in an orphanage and that he is in foster care. She follows the family and discovers that although the family is poor, they love her son very much. She must decide: does she try to remove her son from the only family he has ever known and loved because she wants him, or does she let him remain with them. The court scenes are wrenching, her longing for her son, palpable. I will not tell you what happens in the last part of the book. I will tell you it has a "happy" ending. Not a sitcom happy ending, but an, all things considered, happy ending. Overall, a great book. I couldn't put it down and Olympia was a wonderful character to watch mature and evolve. I would highly recommend this book.
I read Fortune's Rocks by Anita Shreve. This is a very poignant book about love, love lost, and the sacrifices we make for those we love. The book's central character, Olympia, age fifteen, lives in the final days of the 19th century. One summer, when with her parents at their summer home in Fortune's Rocks, she begins an affair with her father's close friend and associate, a man who is almost three times her age and married with four children. Their relationship is a loving and passionate one. Unfortunately, they are caught red-handed, at her 16th birthday party, no less, by his wife. Several months later, Olympia discovers she is pregnant.
This first part of the book causes quite the moral quandary. He is married and she is still a child, yet the story is so well written that you can feel their love through the pages. It is not based on physical desire alone, in fact, their intense physical passion results from their intellectual understanding of one another (she is incredibly well educated for a woman). After their child is born, he is taken away, where, she has no clue. She doesn't know if her lover even knew of her pregnancy. She suffers this loss intensely and spends the next four years trying to make up for the intense disappointment she has become to her parents. But she never repents of her actions. She wishes she could undo the hurt caused to everyone, but she cannot convince herself that the love she felt was, or ever would be, wrong. After four years of exile, she feels that she has lost herself and returns to Fortune's Rocks, by herself, to heal.
While in Fortune's Rocks she discovers that her son is there, that her lover placed him in an orphanage and that he is in foster care. She follows the family and discovers that although the family is poor, they love her son very much. She must decide: does she try to remove her son from the only family he has ever known and loved because she wants him, or does she let him remain with them. The court scenes are wrenching, her longing for her son, palpable. I will not tell you what happens in the last part of the book. I will tell you it has a "happy" ending. Not a sitcom happy ending, but an, all things considered, happy ending. Overall, a great book. I couldn't put it down and Olympia was a wonderful character to watch mature and evolve. I would highly recommend this book.
Monday, October 08, 2007
The cat's meow
After War and Peace I thought I might take a break from Russian literature. But my friend Sarah has been bugging me for years to read Mikhail Bulgakov's The Master and Margarita and said it would be a great read after the crap that was War and Peace. Boy, was she right.
The Master and Margarita takes place in Moscow during the Stalin era of terror (specifically the 1930s, since most of the Stalin era was an era of terror). This book is so magnificent, I don't really know how to describe it. Bulgakov uses fantasy to reveal the corruption and lack of artistic freedom in the Soviet Union. Satan lands in Moscow, along with his bizarre crew, and causes total chaos in the artistic community. We find out that his goal is to "save" the Master, a writer, who was institutionalized after he wrote a book about Jesus and Pontius Pilate. Intrigued yet? This book will make you think for days and days. If you don't know much about Soviet history, it might make you head to your local library to learn why this book was banned for 26 years after it was written. And when you finish reading it, you know you'll have to read it again, because you missed something. As for me, I'm going to start looking for Bulgakov's work, because he is indeed a Master.
The Master and Margarita takes place in Moscow during the Stalin era of terror (specifically the 1930s, since most of the Stalin era was an era of terror). This book is so magnificent, I don't really know how to describe it. Bulgakov uses fantasy to reveal the corruption and lack of artistic freedom in the Soviet Union. Satan lands in Moscow, along with his bizarre crew, and causes total chaos in the artistic community. We find out that his goal is to "save" the Master, a writer, who was institutionalized after he wrote a book about Jesus and Pontius Pilate. Intrigued yet? This book will make you think for days and days. If you don't know much about Soviet history, it might make you head to your local library to learn why this book was banned for 26 years after it was written. And when you finish reading it, you know you'll have to read it again, because you missed something. As for me, I'm going to start looking for Bulgakov's work, because he is indeed a Master.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The House Gun
My latest read is The House Gun by Nadine Gordimer. This is an amazingly well written book about a very unpleasant topic. An upper middle class white couple, in a former colonial African country, are horrified to find out their adult son has not only been arrested for murder, but he has plead guilty. This book travels through the disbelief, the horror, the thoughts and the actions of the parents as they try to understand, place blame and finally accept what they think they know about their son. The book also deals with subtle racism and homophobia in a newly freed and "liberal" country. This is not a feel-good book. There is no happy ending. But it is a thought provoking book. How would you act if your child committed a murder? Do you still love them? Whose fault is it: yours, your spouses, societies? Does life go on "normally" afterwards? I really don't know if I would recommend this book or not. It is amazingly well written and it does make you think about yourself and your beliefs. So maybe I would recommend it, with the warning that you're probably not going to feel great about it afterwards.
On that note, we leave for Minnesota tomorrow, so have a great week/weekend.
On that note, we leave for Minnesota tomorrow, so have a great week/weekend.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Round and round
My sub job isn't as great as I would like. It's only two hours a day. But still, it's two hours a day and the nice office lady is trying to find me more work. And if I'm willing to work for only two hours a day, I'll get on her good side and then maybe she'll call me more often with more work. Yesterday I helped pass out school schedules (some poor child had the last name of Fagg), and then she let me leave. But I will start working again tomorrow. I will be teaching German, so it's appropriate that I'm not feeling well and have a bunch of stuff draining on the back of my throat. That stuff will make it much easier to pronounce German words easier!
Back to Tolstoy. I think Tolstoy was trying to come up with his meaning of life. As he got older, he split from the Russian Orthodox Church (the state sanctioned religion) in order to find a more personal religious experience. He wrote about this, although I haven't read any of his Christian writings. He was a complex man, one who wanted to treat his peasants right and use his fortune for good, but he was also a man, and fought to overcome his vices (most notably, those peasant girls). He had the time to realize there had to be more to life than just sustenance, and he was intelligent enough to think through the big questions. I think that's what War and Peace was all about. I guess it was his blog.
Wes's bachelor's degree is in computer technology/programming, or something like that. The navy will actually give Wes 2 years off from work to send him to school for his Master's degree. That one will be in computer engineering, but he won't start that for another year. Right now, he is using the GI bill to get a different Master's degree (like myself, Wes loves to learn for the sake of knowledge). He is interested in finance and stocks and bonds and all that other stuff. But, I don't think he knows quite enough for me to just hand over our (small) excess money and say, "go make us millions!" So he found a program that is Financial management and Information systems. The finance stuff will all be new for him (at a university level, he has actually read a TON of books about it) and my dad is a CFO, so he can always call my dad if he needs help. The information systems will be review. My husband spent this weekend writing his own excel program to chart our profits (with our non-existent money) and took apart the two computers he had previously built to fix them. My husband is very intelligent, and in these areas, he runs circles around me. Actually, I think he may be smarter than me, but I would never tell him that. But I am proud of him.
Well, I guess that's about it for now. I think I'm going to take a nap, and hopefully I'll feel better tomorrow.
Back to Tolstoy. I think Tolstoy was trying to come up with his meaning of life. As he got older, he split from the Russian Orthodox Church (the state sanctioned religion) in order to find a more personal religious experience. He wrote about this, although I haven't read any of his Christian writings. He was a complex man, one who wanted to treat his peasants right and use his fortune for good, but he was also a man, and fought to overcome his vices (most notably, those peasant girls). He had the time to realize there had to be more to life than just sustenance, and he was intelligent enough to think through the big questions. I think that's what War and Peace was all about. I guess it was his blog.
Wes's bachelor's degree is in computer technology/programming, or something like that. The navy will actually give Wes 2 years off from work to send him to school for his Master's degree. That one will be in computer engineering, but he won't start that for another year. Right now, he is using the GI bill to get a different Master's degree (like myself, Wes loves to learn for the sake of knowledge). He is interested in finance and stocks and bonds and all that other stuff. But, I don't think he knows quite enough for me to just hand over our (small) excess money and say, "go make us millions!" So he found a program that is Financial management and Information systems. The finance stuff will all be new for him (at a university level, he has actually read a TON of books about it) and my dad is a CFO, so he can always call my dad if he needs help. The information systems will be review. My husband spent this weekend writing his own excel program to chart our profits (with our non-existent money) and took apart the two computers he had previously built to fix them. My husband is very intelligent, and in these areas, he runs circles around me. Actually, I think he may be smarter than me, but I would never tell him that. But I am proud of him.
Well, I guess that's about it for now. I think I'm going to take a nap, and hopefully I'll feel better tomorrow.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
War and Peace
Grab a cup of coffee and pull up a chair. This review is going to be long, but not as long as the approximately 1,600 page book.
One of my professors from UW often said that Leo Tolstoy wrote War and Peace to explain the Decembrist Revolution of 1825 (not the band, but the event the band named itself for). Therefore, before I begin to discuss the book, I'm going to start with a history lesson (Yay!). All historical information and any further information you would like can be found in A History of Russia by Nicholas V. Riasanovsky (a classic).
Unlike many history lessons, this one will go backwards, for reasons that will be evident later. In December 1825 Tsar Alexander I died, leaving no legitimate heirs. It appeared to most of Russia (meaning those who were educated) that his younger brother, Constantine, would be declared Tsar. However, he had previously married a Polish aristocrat and renounced his rights to the throne. This was not widely known. It also meant that the youngest brother, Nicholas I, was declared Tsar in his place. When the new Tsar presented himself to the military, in order for them to swear allegiance to him, several officers began a riot, claiming that Nicholas had usurped the throne from his brother. At this time, officers in the military consisted of the aristocracy, well educated young men, many of whom had been to Western Europe. It was rumored that these young men convinced the regular soldiers to chant "For Constantine and a constitution." However, the simple soldiers reportedly thought that constitution was Constantine's wife. Needless to say, a few officers and confused soldiers a revolution does not make. Most of the elite society believed that the officers would receive lenient sentences. First, it was the beginning of his reign, and heavy punishment would show the new Tsar to lack mercy. Second, and most importantly, these young men were aristocrats and nobles, who were well educated, and whose families had supported the autocracy for centuries. Regardless, Nicholas I gave them heavy sentences and the story of the Decembrists and their wives riding through Russia on their way to Siberia inspired others who opposed the Tsar.
According to my professor, it was this event that Tolstoy was trying to explain. How could the best and brightest, those who personally benefitted from the autocracy, decide they wanted a constitution? The simple answer, according to my professor: the Napoleanic wars. Under the previous Tsar, Alexander I, Russia had first fought against Napolean (along with the rest of Europe), made peace with him, and then fought him again, when he actually invaded Russia in 1812. This is the story told in War and Peace. I looked for and expected to find, the story of how the Napoleonic wars created the Decembrists. However, I should add right here, I did not find it. Or rather, I kind of sorta found it in two pages at the very end of the book. Now, my professor is much more intelligent than me, but I do consider myself quite intelligent also. Therefore, if I was looking for this, and didn't find it, how are all the people not looking for it going to find it. I must conclude that if Tolstoy did indeed write War and Peace to explain the Decembrists, he failed.
War and Peace is considered, by many, to be the best novel ever written. In Russia, people argue over who is the best writer, Tolstoy or Dostoevsky. Now, I prefer Dostoevsky, but since Tolstoy is considered one of the greatest writers ever, I expected War and Peace to be a great story, highly readable, and that I would gain insight about the Napoleanic wars, Russian politics, Russian society and human nature. I did not. The book is divided into three volumes, of approximately 550 pages each. I felt that the first half of the book could adaquitely be summed up by reading Alexander Pushkins's Eugene Onegin, a much shorter story. The first half of War and Peace described the aristocratic scene, the love affairs, the intrigues, the nobility going broke and trying to broker advantageous marriages for their sons and daughters, the balls, the duels, the boredom, and only a small mix of politics. Although several of the characters are very well written, and you have to commend him for writing a story 1,600 pages long, it could have been much, much shorter.
Tolstoy actually praises himself for his description of the war, in the notes from the author. However, I felt his descriptions of the chaos, confusion, and futility of war could just as easily be gained by reading Red Badge of Courage or All Quiet on the Western Front. And again, both these books are much, much shorter than War and Peace.
However, I do not think the story, which is often fascinating, but quite longer than it needed to be, was not the reason Tolstoy wrote War and Peace. Throughout the book and in the Second Epilogue, Tolstoy delves into his philosophy of history. I believe this was his purpose in writing War and Peace. As these are by far the most boring part of the book, he probably felt he had to add a story to keep readers interested. In these sections, Tolstoy discusses history, the progress of history and so on. He argues about Great Man history (otherwise known as Dead White Man history). He argues about genius versus chance. He appropriates Hegel without naming him. He argues about whether or not God plays a role in history, whether we really have free will and whether history could progress without Napoleon and Alexander I. He discusses how history is written (political, cultural, by the victor). He was trying to figure out why men kill each other. Overall, he was trying to find the meaning of life, of history, of the world. This is his conclusion, "The activity of these people interested me only as an illustration of the law of predetermination which in my opinion guides history, and of that psychological law which compels a man who commits actions under the greatest compulsion, to supply in his imagination a whole series of retrospective reflections to prove his freedom to himself." This is not a bad lesson, only I didn't need to read 1,600 pages to get there. I already have my own theory of history.
Overall, I found War and Peace very disappointing. It is supposed to be the greatest book every written, by the greatest author ever born. Either I am too stupid to appreciate it, or too many people credit it with this title based on its length only. The story was good, but it was not worth the time of 1,600 pages. Perhaps I will pick it up in 30 years or so and will finally be illuminated, but for now, I remain firmly in Dostoevsky's corner and believe that the Napoleonic wars were the cause of the Decembrists, not because Tolstoy told me so, but because a very wise professor did.
One of my professors from UW often said that Leo Tolstoy wrote War and Peace to explain the Decembrist Revolution of 1825 (not the band, but the event the band named itself for). Therefore, before I begin to discuss the book, I'm going to start with a history lesson (Yay!). All historical information and any further information you would like can be found in A History of Russia by Nicholas V. Riasanovsky (a classic).
Unlike many history lessons, this one will go backwards, for reasons that will be evident later. In December 1825 Tsar Alexander I died, leaving no legitimate heirs. It appeared to most of Russia (meaning those who were educated) that his younger brother, Constantine, would be declared Tsar. However, he had previously married a Polish aristocrat and renounced his rights to the throne. This was not widely known. It also meant that the youngest brother, Nicholas I, was declared Tsar in his place. When the new Tsar presented himself to the military, in order for them to swear allegiance to him, several officers began a riot, claiming that Nicholas had usurped the throne from his brother. At this time, officers in the military consisted of the aristocracy, well educated young men, many of whom had been to Western Europe. It was rumored that these young men convinced the regular soldiers to chant "For Constantine and a constitution." However, the simple soldiers reportedly thought that constitution was Constantine's wife. Needless to say, a few officers and confused soldiers a revolution does not make. Most of the elite society believed that the officers would receive lenient sentences. First, it was the beginning of his reign, and heavy punishment would show the new Tsar to lack mercy. Second, and most importantly, these young men were aristocrats and nobles, who were well educated, and whose families had supported the autocracy for centuries. Regardless, Nicholas I gave them heavy sentences and the story of the Decembrists and their wives riding through Russia on their way to Siberia inspired others who opposed the Tsar.
According to my professor, it was this event that Tolstoy was trying to explain. How could the best and brightest, those who personally benefitted from the autocracy, decide they wanted a constitution? The simple answer, according to my professor: the Napoleanic wars. Under the previous Tsar, Alexander I, Russia had first fought against Napolean (along with the rest of Europe), made peace with him, and then fought him again, when he actually invaded Russia in 1812. This is the story told in War and Peace. I looked for and expected to find, the story of how the Napoleonic wars created the Decembrists. However, I should add right here, I did not find it. Or rather, I kind of sorta found it in two pages at the very end of the book. Now, my professor is much more intelligent than me, but I do consider myself quite intelligent also. Therefore, if I was looking for this, and didn't find it, how are all the people not looking for it going to find it. I must conclude that if Tolstoy did indeed write War and Peace to explain the Decembrists, he failed.
War and Peace is considered, by many, to be the best novel ever written. In Russia, people argue over who is the best writer, Tolstoy or Dostoevsky. Now, I prefer Dostoevsky, but since Tolstoy is considered one of the greatest writers ever, I expected War and Peace to be a great story, highly readable, and that I would gain insight about the Napoleanic wars, Russian politics, Russian society and human nature. I did not. The book is divided into three volumes, of approximately 550 pages each. I felt that the first half of the book could adaquitely be summed up by reading Alexander Pushkins's Eugene Onegin, a much shorter story. The first half of War and Peace described the aristocratic scene, the love affairs, the intrigues, the nobility going broke and trying to broker advantageous marriages for their sons and daughters, the balls, the duels, the boredom, and only a small mix of politics. Although several of the characters are very well written, and you have to commend him for writing a story 1,600 pages long, it could have been much, much shorter.
Tolstoy actually praises himself for his description of the war, in the notes from the author. However, I felt his descriptions of the chaos, confusion, and futility of war could just as easily be gained by reading Red Badge of Courage or All Quiet on the Western Front. And again, both these books are much, much shorter than War and Peace.
However, I do not think the story, which is often fascinating, but quite longer than it needed to be, was not the reason Tolstoy wrote War and Peace. Throughout the book and in the Second Epilogue, Tolstoy delves into his philosophy of history. I believe this was his purpose in writing War and Peace. As these are by far the most boring part of the book, he probably felt he had to add a story to keep readers interested. In these sections, Tolstoy discusses history, the progress of history and so on. He argues about Great Man history (otherwise known as Dead White Man history). He argues about genius versus chance. He appropriates Hegel without naming him. He argues about whether or not God plays a role in history, whether we really have free will and whether history could progress without Napoleon and Alexander I. He discusses how history is written (political, cultural, by the victor). He was trying to figure out why men kill each other. Overall, he was trying to find the meaning of life, of history, of the world. This is his conclusion, "The activity of these people interested me only as an illustration of the law of predetermination which in my opinion guides history, and of that psychological law which compels a man who commits actions under the greatest compulsion, to supply in his imagination a whole series of retrospective reflections to prove his freedom to himself." This is not a bad lesson, only I didn't need to read 1,600 pages to get there. I already have my own theory of history.
Overall, I found War and Peace very disappointing. It is supposed to be the greatest book every written, by the greatest author ever born. Either I am too stupid to appreciate it, or too many people credit it with this title based on its length only. The story was good, but it was not worth the time of 1,600 pages. Perhaps I will pick it up in 30 years or so and will finally be illuminated, but for now, I remain firmly in Dostoevsky's corner and believe that the Napoleonic wars were the cause of the Decembrists, not because Tolstoy told me so, but because a very wise professor did.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Read it now!
Awhile back I read Alexandra Fuller's Don't Let's Go to the Dogs Tonight. This autobiographical work tells of her childhood in Africa as part of the white ruling class (although not wealthy). It goes on to describe the horror of independence for all parties involved and the strange re-identification that every African must make after independence. Fuller is an excellent writer and I look forward to reading her other books as well. And, I am excited to write, I have found her fictional counterpart. I have just finished reading Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible. This book easily compares to Fuller's. Kingsolver focuses on a missionary family with four daughters, which moves to the Congo the year before independence is declared. The book is written from the perspective of the mother and the four daughters, in a diary form. Kingsolver obviously did her homework and the lives, traditions, religion, and socio-econonic structure of the Africans is crystal clear. Her characters are well-defined and so beautifully written about that you can picture them, as if you've met them before. This is one of the rare books that you don't want to get to the end, because you don't want the book to end. You want to keep reading and reading. Unfortunately, the book does end. But it does so on a wonderful note. This is the first of Kingsolver's books I've ever read. It will not be the last.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Disease and History
As I was trying to figure out what I wanted to read next I stumbled across this book sitting on my shelf, Disease and History by Frederick F. Cartwright in collaboration with Michael D. Biddiss. I decided to give it a try. It is an older book (early 1970s) so some of the terminology is outdated (VD for STD and such) and Cartwright is not a historian proper, but a historian of medicine. This is evident in some of the writing when he appears to jump from one date/subject/place to another in discussion of the same disease without necessarily telling us that he is jumping from date/subject/place to another. However, I have to admit I found much of the book fascinating and actually wanted more details and accounts of disease.
I found the first four chapters to be the most interesting and the most useful. In the first chapter Cartwright discusses diseases and medicine in the ancient world--during the Greek and Roman times. His ability to take seemingly mundane descriptions of disease and discuss possible diagnosis and where the disease may have first started and how it spread is quite remarkable. The second chapter deals with the most famous of all European disease disasters: the Black Death. Rather than just pointing out how many people died and therefore how that changed history, he discusses the effect that the loss of labor caused in England and thus its evolution from the feudal system centuries before the rest of Europe. He also mentions that European Christians tended to blame the Jews for the Black Death and thus pushed them out of Western Europe (where most of them lived) to Eastern Europe. This move, as we know, had its own ramifications in the 20th century. The third chapter discusses syphilis. Syphilis is often mentioned in histories of the Russian peasantry, but I had never read a satisfactory explanation of how it was spread (non-sexually) or where it had come from. Cartwright answered all these questions for me. For that reason, this was the most fascinating chapter for me. He discusses how a disease can change forms when moving from one environment to another and how this occurs. The fourth chapter discusses Napoleon's invasion of Russia and how typhus (not to be confused with typhoid fever, which I didn't know was something different) decimated Napoleon's army before he even got to Russia. He also pointed out that Napoleon's character also contributed to bad decision making with further reduced his Grand Army.
The next two chapters deal with the unexplored (to Europe) sections of the world: the Americas and Africa. These chapters were also interesting, but less so. This is probably because I knew more about this topic than the other topics.
Chapter 7, Queen Victoria and the Fall of the Russian Monarchy, was wholly unconvincing to me. Hemophilia in the only male heir to the throne presented some problems. However, I think Cartwright simplifies the situation, claiming that if Alexis could have ruled (which he couldn't because of his hemophilia) than the Bolsheviks could have never taken power. Yeah, not quite that simple.
Chapter 8 began with a very interesting account of Joan of Arc and possible medical conditions that could have caused her visions. However, the rest of the chapter, titled Mass Suggestion, focused on Hitler's Germany. Cartwright is correct in stating that mass suggestion played an important role in Hitler's Germany, but I didn't feel that this issue really had a place in the larger context of this book.
The final chapter discusses side-effects of prescription drugs and pollution. I didn't actually read all of it because I get enough of that elsewhere. And also because his information is now outdated.
All in all, I enjoyed this book and found it very informative. It presented a whole new way to investigate history and if used, could open up new solutions to historical situations that remain a mystery, or complicate known historical facts.
I found the first four chapters to be the most interesting and the most useful. In the first chapter Cartwright discusses diseases and medicine in the ancient world--during the Greek and Roman times. His ability to take seemingly mundane descriptions of disease and discuss possible diagnosis and where the disease may have first started and how it spread is quite remarkable. The second chapter deals with the most famous of all European disease disasters: the Black Death. Rather than just pointing out how many people died and therefore how that changed history, he discusses the effect that the loss of labor caused in England and thus its evolution from the feudal system centuries before the rest of Europe. He also mentions that European Christians tended to blame the Jews for the Black Death and thus pushed them out of Western Europe (where most of them lived) to Eastern Europe. This move, as we know, had its own ramifications in the 20th century. The third chapter discusses syphilis. Syphilis is often mentioned in histories of the Russian peasantry, but I had never read a satisfactory explanation of how it was spread (non-sexually) or where it had come from. Cartwright answered all these questions for me. For that reason, this was the most fascinating chapter for me. He discusses how a disease can change forms when moving from one environment to another and how this occurs. The fourth chapter discusses Napoleon's invasion of Russia and how typhus (not to be confused with typhoid fever, which I didn't know was something different) decimated Napoleon's army before he even got to Russia. He also pointed out that Napoleon's character also contributed to bad decision making with further reduced his Grand Army.
The next two chapters deal with the unexplored (to Europe) sections of the world: the Americas and Africa. These chapters were also interesting, but less so. This is probably because I knew more about this topic than the other topics.
Chapter 7, Queen Victoria and the Fall of the Russian Monarchy, was wholly unconvincing to me. Hemophilia in the only male heir to the throne presented some problems. However, I think Cartwright simplifies the situation, claiming that if Alexis could have ruled (which he couldn't because of his hemophilia) than the Bolsheviks could have never taken power. Yeah, not quite that simple.
Chapter 8 began with a very interesting account of Joan of Arc and possible medical conditions that could have caused her visions. However, the rest of the chapter, titled Mass Suggestion, focused on Hitler's Germany. Cartwright is correct in stating that mass suggestion played an important role in Hitler's Germany, but I didn't feel that this issue really had a place in the larger context of this book.
The final chapter discusses side-effects of prescription drugs and pollution. I didn't actually read all of it because I get enough of that elsewhere. And also because his information is now outdated.
All in all, I enjoyed this book and found it very informative. It presented a whole new way to investigate history and if used, could open up new solutions to historical situations that remain a mystery, or complicate known historical facts.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Something good
This has been a good weekend. In no particular order. . . .
Yesterday it rained and blew. I didn't really want to go to church, but the days have been long and I knew I needed to get out of the house. The church is right next to a river and as I pulled up a Great Blue Heron flew over my car. It was the most beautiful thing I have ever seen (there's a link to a picture somewhere around here). After church, even though it was still raining, I put on jeans and a sweatshirt and headed to my favorite park. There was no one around but I saw a White Egret and, not one, but two Great Blue Herons. I wasn't that far from them and they are beautiful, tall and elegant. I watched them walk on land, wade in the water and then fly. Amazing. That alone made it a great weekend.
I talked to my grandma this weekend too. She said that she finished "updating" grandpa's life story for the family. Now that she has written it she realizes that his health had been declining quite rapidly at the end. Realizing this has made his death a little easier for her. She seems more accepting of his death and isn't blaming herself for not doing more. Of course she still misses him, but she seems more willing to live a life without him.
Last night at church they talked about missions. The focus this year is Eastern Europe, specifically, the Ukraine. I know a little something about the Ukraine and half of its population speaks Russian. I think I'm going to try to go on a mission trip this summer. I'm a strong believer in actually doing something for the population too, so I was pleased that the focus of the mission trip is actually an English language school. Even learning a little bit of English could greatly help out the economic future of the students. Many of the students will probably know some English but have never met a native speaker to practice with. This is a great way to help out these people and I would be using the knowledge I've spent half my life learning.
*************************************
Book review. The Master of Petersburg by J. M. Coetzee. Before I start ripping this book apart, I'd like to say that Coetzee is an excellent writer. The first book I read by him was Waiting for the Barbarians. Sadly, this book is so good that everything else of his tends to pale in comparison. However, I think everybody should read Waiting for the Barbarians, especially those people involved in the war against terror. I also think Waiting for the Barbarians will be taught in literature classes centuries from now.
Having said that, The Master of Petersburg suffers from one major problem. The book is a fictional account of Dostoevsky return to St. Petersburg after the mysterious death of his stepson, whom, according to Coetzee, he loved very much. To understand the story you have to know something of Dostoevsky, the political situation in Russia at the time and the underground terrorists groups in Russia. However, if you know anything about all that, you find the premise of the book to be simply unbelievable. Kind of a catch-22, if you will. The writing is excellent and I did enjoy it except I kept thinking that Coetzee would have done better to have made Dostoevsky a fictional writer. Only then the story wouldn't have made much sense either. Also, how much hubris do you have, Coetzee, to think you know what Dostoevsky would have felt and thought? My opinion, skip this book and read Waiting for the Barbarians.
I guess that's it for now. We are in serious countdown mode until Wes gets home. I have a few errands to run today and then just trying not to panic until he gets here.
Yesterday it rained and blew. I didn't really want to go to church, but the days have been long and I knew I needed to get out of the house. The church is right next to a river and as I pulled up a Great Blue Heron flew over my car. It was the most beautiful thing I have ever seen (there's a link to a picture somewhere around here). After church, even though it was still raining, I put on jeans and a sweatshirt and headed to my favorite park. There was no one around but I saw a White Egret and, not one, but two Great Blue Herons. I wasn't that far from them and they are beautiful, tall and elegant. I watched them walk on land, wade in the water and then fly. Amazing. That alone made it a great weekend.
I talked to my grandma this weekend too. She said that she finished "updating" grandpa's life story for the family. Now that she has written it she realizes that his health had been declining quite rapidly at the end. Realizing this has made his death a little easier for her. She seems more accepting of his death and isn't blaming herself for not doing more. Of course she still misses him, but she seems more willing to live a life without him.
Last night at church they talked about missions. The focus this year is Eastern Europe, specifically, the Ukraine. I know a little something about the Ukraine and half of its population speaks Russian. I think I'm going to try to go on a mission trip this summer. I'm a strong believer in actually doing something for the population too, so I was pleased that the focus of the mission trip is actually an English language school. Even learning a little bit of English could greatly help out the economic future of the students. Many of the students will probably know some English but have never met a native speaker to practice with. This is a great way to help out these people and I would be using the knowledge I've spent half my life learning.
*************************************
Book review. The Master of Petersburg by J. M. Coetzee. Before I start ripping this book apart, I'd like to say that Coetzee is an excellent writer. The first book I read by him was Waiting for the Barbarians. Sadly, this book is so good that everything else of his tends to pale in comparison. However, I think everybody should read Waiting for the Barbarians, especially those people involved in the war against terror. I also think Waiting for the Barbarians will be taught in literature classes centuries from now.
Having said that, The Master of Petersburg suffers from one major problem. The book is a fictional account of Dostoevsky return to St. Petersburg after the mysterious death of his stepson, whom, according to Coetzee, he loved very much. To understand the story you have to know something of Dostoevsky, the political situation in Russia at the time and the underground terrorists groups in Russia. However, if you know anything about all that, you find the premise of the book to be simply unbelievable. Kind of a catch-22, if you will. The writing is excellent and I did enjoy it except I kept thinking that Coetzee would have done better to have made Dostoevsky a fictional writer. Only then the story wouldn't have made much sense either. Also, how much hubris do you have, Coetzee, to think you know what Dostoevsky would have felt and thought? My opinion, skip this book and read Waiting for the Barbarians.
I guess that's it for now. We are in serious countdown mode until Wes gets home. I have a few errands to run today and then just trying not to panic until he gets here.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Paradise
by Toni Morrison. Wow, wow, wow. I have read other Morrison books, but this one is amazing. While reading it I couldn't put it down. After finishing it I dreamt about it for two nights in a row. While the story is centered around an all black town created and re-created in the early 1900s, giving an initial impression that the story will be white vs. black, the real issues are much more universal. The long standing members of the town are afraid of outsiders, change and especially afraid of the women who live at the Convent outside of town (also all black). However, as the story unfolds we quickly realize that the town members themselves have divided the town into insiders and outsiders, the older generation and the younger generation, and finally men against the women (both in the town and at the Convent). The women at the Convent are busy trying to free themselves from past demons while the men of the town are busy creating new ones for themselves. The slow tension of the story ends in a magnificent ending that is both triumphant and destructive. An excellent psychological novel about fear, courage and change. A must read for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)