Showing posts with label Classics Club. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Classics Club. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Pride and Prejudice Movie Comparison


Pride and Prejudice (1995)
Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth

Funny thing about these movies is that of the more recent two, I have pretty much the same comments to make as I did about the Sense and Sensibility movies last month. The beloved-by-many 1995 version with Colin Firth hits the literal nail on the head. The dialog from the miniseries is taken directly from the book, EVERY important scene is included, the characters are spot-on, and the humor comes through in-tact. Bonus, there're those lovely scenes with Colin Firth in the bathtub and later playing wet-shirt-contest. :) Perfecto! But a little long for a one-sitting viewing. :)


Pride and Prejudice (2005)
Keira Knightly and Matthew MacFadyen
The 2005 movie, on the other hand, makes the story into a romance and removes almost all of the humor. The romance gets to be a bit melodramatic at times, but it is a good romance. I'm not sure if the purpose was to reduce the length/complexity of the story or if the director simply wanted to remove all the humor, but the characters of Mr. and Mrs. Bennet are completely changed in this version. I don't particularly mind, but it's enough to piss off a purist. I rather liked the new Mr. and Mrs. Bennet. ;) 


Pride and Prejudice (1940)
Greer Garson and Laurence Olivier
The classic 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice is short-and-sweet. The humor and the main story line between Darcy and Elizabeth is intact, but all the other characters have changed dramatically. Especially Darcy's aunt. Definitely not a movie for purists. But frankly, I think this one's cute. After all, what's more shocking than a surprise ending in your best-known novel? ;) 


Lost in Austen (2008)
Jemima Cooper and Elliot Cowan
As a bonus, I'll mention my favorite film retelling of Pride and Prejudice - Lost in Austen. In this silly little fantasy, Amanda Price is a modern young Brittish woman who can't settle down in life because she's in love with Mr. Darcy's character. When her boyfriend botches a proposal, Amanda runs away and, out of sheer need, somehow opens a doorway into the story. She trades places with Elizabeth (who has to figure out how to survive in modern London). Unfortunately, Amanda isn't able to keep her modern manners to herself, and she throws the whole story out of whack. Furthermore, many characters turn out to be very different in "real life" than they were perceived to be by the narrator of Pride and Prejudice. What this story lacked in originality, it made up for with well-aimed British humor. :)

Does anybody else have a favorite Austen retelling (book or film)?

Monday, December 17, 2012

Three Men in a Boat, by Jerome K. Jerome

2012 Book 168: Three Men in a Boat (To Say Nothing of the Dog)

Written by Jerome K. Jerome, Narrated by Frederick Davidson

Reason for Reading: This was my "monthly random pick" which took me two months to get to. :) My next "monthly random pick" is The Passage, by Justin Cronin. This book is a classic, so it fits in my Classics Club list. :) 

Review
In this classic novel of humor, three men (to say nothing of the dog) decide to cure their hypochondriac ailments by getting fresh air and exercise. They decide to travel down the Thames in a boat. The narrator jumps back and forth between humorous description of their preparations/trip and silly reminiscences of loosely connected incidents about the characters. This is the type of book where, at the end, you're not sure if there was any story in there at all, but you certainly enjoyed the trip regardless. It was a good-natured, happy sort of humor. This is a short book, and certainly worth reading if you like the classics. :)



Thursday, October 18, 2012

Pride and Prejudice, by Jane Austen (NCE; WLC)

2012 Book 148: Pride and Prejudice (A Norton Critical Edition)

written by Jane Austen, edited by Donald J. Gray

Reason for Reading: Technically, I read this book on a whim. However, I'm trying to get through all the lessons from The Great Courses: Western Literary Canon, and this book is conveniently lecture 24. Out of order, yes, but perhaps the book gods will be forgiving. I won't consider this lesson complete, though, until I read the recommended critiques and biographies. I also intend on re-reading some more Austen books, and some contemporary authors and authors who are said to have influenced Austen. So I'm not done with the lesson yet!

My Review
The Bennet household is in a bit of a financial bind. They have five unmarried daughters with almost no dowry, and the estate is to be inherited by a mysterious cousin that no one's met yet. But things get exciting when a rich bachelor moves to town and brings is even richer bachelor friend. Every young lady in the area is ready to throw themselves at these men. Except, of course, for Elizabeth Bennet. She instantly decides that the rich bachelor is perfect for her sister, Jane, and his richer friend is the most detestable man on the planet. Thus starts one of the best-loved romances in Western literature. And, like most everyone else, I loved this story. Even on the nth reading of it. :) 

This book is also a social satire, which is a fact unfortunately ignored by many readers. I think many of the people who hate the book (mostly men) see it simply as a romance and don't look any further. This failing to see the humor was one of the reasons I so loathed Seth Graham-Smith's Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. I had high hopes that he had managed to weave Austen's sense of humor (i.e. a wry, witty social satire) with zombie-whacking humor. I would have eaten such a book alive. :D But, alas, Graham-Smith clearly didn't understand the humor in P&P...I wasted a couple hours of my life on that book that I will NEVER get back again. 


Since there's not much else I can say in a mini-review of the story that hasn't been said over and over, I'll discuss the supplementary material in the Norton Critical Edition. There wasn't a LOT of supplementary information in the book, but it was generally of good quality. It started with a biography of Austen, punctuated with letters written by the author. This part would be helpful to someone who isn't familiar with Austen's life, but wouldn't be particularly new to anyone who's read a biography of her. Additionally, there were several critical analyses of Pride and Prejudice, both contemporary and modern. I enjoyed most of these--though I admit I got bored with the Freudian one and moved on to the next. The piece I found most surprising was the interview with Colin Firth. I really didn't think that this interview belonged in a critical edition of P&P and wasn't expecting much from it. But I was very wrong. Colin Firth had a strong understanding of Darcy's character (of course! how could I doubt? It IS his job!). It was fascinating to read his thoughts about how he incorporated his understanding of Darcy's motivations in the most powerful scenes (such as the first ball, the drawing room discussion when Lizzy was at Netherfield, the dance at Netherfield, and the proposal). It gave me a completely new impression of Darcy's character and made me want to watch the whole miniseries again. 

I found the excerpt by Marilyn Butler Jane Austen and the War of Ideas: Pride and Prejudice, quite helpful...I feel encouraged to read Butler's entire book (after I finish re-reading the rest of Austen's novels). In this excerpt, Butler shows how Darcy and Elizabeth have elements of both pride and prejudice in their personalities. I had always thought about Darcy being proud and Elizabeth being prejudiced...but now I see that it is not that simple. Darcy was proud of his lineage and wealth, and he was prejudiced against people who had less wealth and less sophistication than himself. Elizabeth was prejudiced against Darcy because of his initial bad impression, but she was too proud to allow for the possibility that she might be mistaken in her first impressions. 

SPOILERS START HERE
She stubbornly liked Wickham, despite the fact that he said he wouldn't speak ill of Darcy, and yet gossiped about Darcy till the cows came home...despite the fact that he said he had no reason to avoid Darcy, and yet ran off when the ball came 'round...despite the fact that he was clearly a fortune hunter. Furthermore, Elizabeth stubbornly detested Darcy, even though she was warned by Jane and Miss Bingley that there might be more to the story than Wickham acknowledged....despite the fact that Darcy made clear efforts to be more polite to her as he got to know her better....despite the fact that he politely asked her not to "sketch his character" at the present moment because it would do neither of them any justice. 

I had never before thought of the flaws of Elizabeth's character. But, indeed, she had to have flaws so that she could develop throughout the book. One of her most amusing flaws was that she was judgmental and critical of everyone--and THAT is exactly the complaint she had of Mr. Darcy's character! It is quite common, I suppose, to detest your own flaws when you see them in other people. :)


I think this is an interesting time to insert the Jane Austen Character Quiz. I was a little annoyed at question 7 which asks which actress would play me in a movie, because if I said I'd be played by Gwenneth Paltrow, isn't that just ASKING to be Emma? So I decided to take the quiz several times, and see what answer I got for EACH of the actresses. It turns out that I would be Elizabeth Bennet for five of the seven actress choices, and I would be Elinor Dashwood if played by Emma Thompson, and Anne Elliot if played by Amanda Root. I took that to mean that I COULD be Elinor if I really wanted to be, but really I was Elizabeth.

I was a little put out at first. I really wanted to be Elinor. But, then again, I am really NONE of the Austen characters, am I? I did some thinking about this issue, though. And I considered: Elizabeth Bennet's most outstanding characteristics are that she's witty/sarcastic and fun-loving. I don't know if I'm particularly witty, but I am a bit sarcastic, and I think I'm fun-loving as well. Her characteristic that drives the plot of Pride and Prejudice, however, is that she tends to be critical of her fellow humans, makes strong and lasting immediate impressions, and stubbornly sticks to these first impressions despite contradictory evidence. I don't really want to be those things. But you know what? I don't think those are good characteristics, but, as I said above, we tend to detest our own flaws when we see them in other people. ;) I have been writing a lot of letters to my cousin Steve lately, and it made me realize that I spend an awful lot of time criticizing other people. Not that I feel I'm BETTER than those other people...but, still, I was surprised that I must seem (to Steve) to be rather judgmental. This was a side of my personality that I hadn't seen before, because I'd never had the chance to talk so freely as I do in those prolific letters. So...perhaps the quiz knows what it's talking about after all?



The Great Courses: Western Literary Canon 


Lecture 24: Pride and Prejudice, Women in the Canon


SPOILERS CONTINUED

I'll just finish up with some comments on Lecture 24 in the Western Literary Canon course. Professor Bowers begins by pointing out that, unlike many other canonical works, Jane Austen's books are generally read for pure pleasure. I found similar opinions in the Norton Critical Edition. Apparently, one really shouldn't look for a "deeper meaning" in Austen's books--they're simply not that deep. They're meant to entertain, not to educate. I suppose I can understand this point of view, as Pride and Prejudice is certainly less deep than Candide, by Voltaire (for example). They are both social satires, but Austen is much lighter. :) Professor Bowers claims that the charm of Austen's books is that she portrayed humanity accurately and honestly. I think this is true in that her books portray human folly. However, I feel many of her characters satirize human folly to (humorous) extremes. 

Jane Austen was one of the first women authors who was accepted into the "Western literary canon." Mostly, the great critics-on-high chose books by deeply educated male authors. However, once Austen was accepted, critics opened to the idea of women canonical authors ,and efforts were made to retreat into history and rescue women authors who deserve canonical status like Sappho, Marie deFrance, and  Christine de Pizan. Professor Bowers didn't point this out, but another impact that I think Austen had is that she is the mother of "regency romance." Most regency romances today are thematically copied from Austen's style. Regency romances, ranging from Christian to erotica, abound in today's market. 

Bowers makes the interesting point that Mrs. Bennet is the protagonist of Pride and Prejudice by Aristotelian view--she is the one who schemes to get her daughters married, and she is the one whose dreams come true. Margaret Drabble, in her introduction to Pride and Prejudice [1], even suggests that Mrs. Bennet may be simply misunderstood by modern readers. Due to the circumstances and time, her life revolves around finding suitable husbands for her daughters to ensure that they don't end up poverty-stricken old maids. She is, perhaps, a bit over-zealous and foolish in her attempts at matchmaking...but her intentions are very maternal. This is an interpretation of Mrs. Bennet that I have never considered, and I found it refreshing. 

On this reading, I wasn't any less impressed by the silliness of Mrs. Bennet than I had previously been; but I was surprised at a new opinion of Mr. Bennet. I had always considered him to be a sensible man with a delightfully sarcastic edge. But he wasn't at all sensible. He SHOULD have laid aside money over the years instead of assuming he'd eventually have a son. When he realized he wasn't going to have a son, he should have made more efforts to keep Mrs. Bennet from overspending. Instead of laughing at the folly of his daughters and wife, he should have spoken some sense into them--at the very least into his daughters. By laughing at their folly, he allowed them to expose themselves both to ridicule and to the preying eyes of ungentlemanly men. He shouldn't have encouraged his daughters to laugh at his wife. He is just as much at fault for the ridiculousness of the family as his wife is.

[1] Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New York:  Penguin Group 2008. ISBN: 1-101-08421-98


Texts that I have read for this lesson:

Jane Austen: Pride and Prejudice (Norton Critical Edition) (required reading)

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Surprised by Joy, by C. S. Lewis

2012 Book 144: Surprised by Joy

Written by C. S. Lewis, Narrated by Geoffrey Howard

Reason for Reading: I'm slowly working through the books of C. S. Lewis out of curiosity for his theology. 



Reveiw
In this short memoir, C. S. Lewis describes his spiritual journey from youthful atheist to firm and faithful believer. This isn't really a memoir of Lewis' life, although it does contain some interesting anecdotes about his school years. Mostly, he only focuses on incidents in his life that impacted his spiritual development. I have read many spiritual development memoirs, and this one is like the others...only it stands out because it is a classic. It was written when these types of journeys were not as commonly shared in memoirs. (In fact, I suspect that this book was one of the ones that inspired so many of the spiritual-journey memoirs that we see today.) One thing I found interesting about this book is it explained to me why so many people retro-diagnose Lewis with Asperger's syndrome. He talked about his difficulties dealing with other students...not knowing how to respond in social situations and being told to "take that look off [his] face" when he was trying very hard to keep an appropriate facial expression. I think it is important to recognize that we can't accurately retro-diagnose people with today's syndromes, but it IS interesting to see how such personality traits were present in Lewis' day, and how he excused them with stories about how childhood events affected his social interactions. It was definitely an interesting read...and anyone who likes to hear about others' spiritual journeys really should start with C. S. Lewis.


Sunday, October 7, 2012

Classics Club: October Meme

It's time for my post for the Classics Club October Meme! This meme is a way for all of us classics clubbers to interact with each other and remind ourselves that we can't always be introverts. ;) The question of the month is: Why are you reading the classics?

I have always loved reading the classics. First of all, if they've survived this long, that's generally because they're so powerful that they resonate throughout the ages. I appreciate a good book! Second, I enjoy learning about history. Reading books that were written in a certain historical period is a fantastic way to help me learn about that time period. Third, I enjoy picking up on allusions to classics in popular culture (and other books). It is fascinating how certain ideas stay with us forever...how some of them morph with time and become new ideas. I enjoy following this process because it helps me understand what is important to us psychologically. 

Update: So far, I have read and reviewed 3 of 50 on my classics club list.

For those of you who are not members of the classics club (and therefore don't have your own blog post on the topic) please feel free to answer this month's question in my comments! :)


Sunday, September 23, 2012

The Blind Owl, by Sadegh Hedayat

2012 Book 136: The Blind Owl  

Written by Sadegh Hedayat; Translated by D.P. Costello; Introduction by Porochista Khakpour

Reason for Reading: 
In order to increase awareness of speculative fiction authors-of-color for A More Diverse Universe blog tour, I have read and reviewed The Blind Owl, by Sadegh Hedayat. Although The Blind Owl may not be considered speculative fiction by critics, I felt that the surreal nature of this book fit with the spirit of speculative fiction. 

My Review
In this surreal novella, an unnamed protagonist unburdens the deadly weight on his chest by confessing to his own grotesquely owl-shaped shadow on the wall. 

"in order to explain my life to my stooping shadow, I am obliged to tell a story. Ugh! How many stories about love, copulation, marriage and death already exist, not one of which tells the truth! How sick I am of well-constructed plots and brilliant writing!"

In his mind-spinning narration, it is difficult to tell when the events described are cloaked with opium, veiled with madness, or are simple truth. This novel is deeply disturbing in many ways. It narrates horrific events, certainly, but it is the manner that they are conveyed that is frightening. His imagery is surreal. His repetition is hypnotic. His words are oppressive. 

"Only death does not lie. The presence of death annihilates all superstitions. We are the children of death and it is death that rescues us from the deceptions of life."

The imagery and symbolism used by Hedayat portrays his personal marriage between Western and Eastern culture. Although this book is considered the essence of Persian literature, there are signs of Poe and Kafka. The Blind Owl bled, vomited, and wept Freudian symbolism. 

This was an amazing book, and highly recommended to people interested in Persian fiction or in modernist fiction. 


About the Author and Book: 
Sadegh Hedayat (1903-1951) was one of the two fathers of Persian fiction, and sole father of modernist Persian literature. He was born to an aristocratic family in Tehran, and grew up during a turbulent time in the history of Iran. After WWI, the country underwent "modernization" and "Westernization." As always happens with modernization, many people felt oppressed by the loss of culture and ceremony...by the loss of what makes them THEM and by the adoption of foreign values. Hedayat was apparently not one of these people. In 1925 he left Iran for studies in Europe. After short-lived attempts at studying engineering, architecture, and dentistry, he dedicated his life to studying Western literature and to learning Iranian folklore and history. From 1937 to 1939, Hedayat lived in India. The Blind Owl was first published in 1937 in Bombay, India with the label: "Not for publication in Iran." At the time of publication Iran was suffering from the oppressive later years of the reign of Reza Shah. Free press was limited, the middle class was ruled with an "Iron Fist," and the bureaucracy was falling apart under corruption. 

In Hadayat's later years, his writings attacked the monarchy and the clergy of Iran, which he felt were leading to its downfall. However, he felt alienated by everyone around him in Iran, and moved to Paris. In 1951, he gassed himself in his apartment by plugging all the windows and doors with cotton. He left money for his burial in plain view. 

The introduction to The Blind Owl, written by Porochista Khakpour in the Costello translation is well worth reading. She tells about her history with the novel...how her father wouldn't let her read it when she was a child because it had lead to so many suicides among Iranian youths. I get the impression that Khakpour's family was of a melancholic nature and was strongly affected by books of this nature. I found The Blind Owl disturbing, but I didn't experience any inconvenient urge to off myself after reading it. 

Personal interpretation that will contain middle-of-story SPOILERS:

I generally roll my eyes whenever the phrase "Oedipus complex" is introduced into an interpretation. However, in this case, I think "Oedipus complex" is exactly what Hedayat was aiming for. The ONLY character named in the entire book was his mother. He described his mother's dancing in sensual detail. He obsessed sexually about all maternal figures in his life, including his aunt and his nanny. He admits to marrying "that bitch" his wife because she reminded him of his aunt (whom he worshiped with an almost sensual passion). He viewed his mother, nanny, and aunt as sexually unattainable...but that view was extended to his wife. He insisted that he had never slept with her. That he had gone mad from her denial of him and her promiscuity with flea-ridden brutes off the streets. I interpreted these obsessive delusions as false. I assumed that he had, indeed, coupled with his wife, but in his madness repressed those memories and created new delusional memories about other men. (On a side note, I'm not even certain his wife was his aunt's child...she may have been the daughter of his nanny...but I don't know why that would matter?)

The Oedipus complex extended towards his feelings for his father, his father's brother, and his father-in-law. He seemed to fear and loathe the very idea of any of these men--they had, in fact, merged with each other in his own mind. Worse, they had merged with his own self-image so that he feared and loathed himself--probably for his unsatisfied sexual desires towards maternal figures. 

Of course, I don't think the entire story was about an Oedipus complex...that was just the theme that jumped out at me on my first perusal. The story was about a man who was isolated from the rest of the world. A man who would never belong. A man who had no one to unburden himself to as the world around him crumbled into surreal chaos. The isolation was likely a reflection of Hedayat's own feelings of alienation. The world crumbling around him was likely how he viewed the socio-economic failure of Iran. 

I'm sure this is the type of book that you find something new each and every time you read it...even if you meticulously study it for years.



Saturday, September 15, 2012

The Martian Chronicles, by Ray Bradbury



2012 Book 135: The Martian Chronicles
Written by Ray Bradbury, Narrated by Peter Marinker

Reason for Reading: Fantasy and Science fiction Coursera Course



My Review 
This is a collection of Ray Bradbury's Mars colonization stories which were originally published in pulp magazines over a period of a few years. They are independent of each other in plot, but it is fascinating how Bradbury managed to pull them all together in a cohesive whole which told a story in itself. This book is considered the bridge between classic pulp science fiction (which targeted lowest-common-denominator audiences) and the more thoughtful and sophisticated modern science fiction. The stories have the same raw imagination as pulp, but each one tackles one or more social issues as well. The stories are fast and fun, and yet intriguing.

My favorite story is about two missionaries bent on saving the Martians from sins that we humans haven't even imagined yet. The philosophical discussion of sin and the ironic use of Christian symbolism meshed surprisingly well with the sf-pulpy imagery. Bradbury also touched on evils-of-colonization, race-relations and xenophobia, and politics...to name but a few issues. I was also impressed by Bradbury's expectations of "the future" (1999 - 2020). Unavoidably, some of his themes were dated--we no longer worry about nuclear holocaust and (I hope!) lynch mobs are very rare in the US these days. He didn't foresee the civil rights movement or the cooling of the arms race. Despite this lack of foresight, he showed that humans never change. We may think we're living in an enlightened age, but xenophobia still exists and we're still willing to destroy the history and of an old land in order to set up our new world. Yes, I did feel that the stories tended to be a bit on the dreary side, but for some reason it didn't bother me so much because it was made palatable by Bradbury's fantastic imagination.

This is a fantastic classic that any science fiction fan should read. 

Friday, September 14, 2012

Herland, by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

2012 Book 134: Herland, by Charlotte Perkins Gilman 9/14/2012

Reason for Reading: Fantasy and science fiction Coursera

My Review:

On an exploratory trip in "savage" lands, three young American men find a country composed entirely of women. As these men learn about the history and culture of Herland, they are at first dismayed but later impressed at the asexuality and absolute social perfection of these women. For the first time, they notice the flaws in their own society and feel ashamed. 

I'm having a really hard time deciding what to think about Herland. I tend to prefer plot-driven novels, or at the very least character-driven novels. Herland was neither plot- nor character-driven...it was concept driven. Gilman was trying to convey a set of principles using an allegorical dialog. Gilman felt that women are subjugated by their sexuality. Because their economic happiness depends on their ability to attract men, they resort to jealousies and obsessions with fripperies. In Herland, there are no men...therefore they do not depend upon their sexuality to land them a desirable place in life--they depend only upon hard work and virtue. Since there are no men, they have no reason to be jealous, catty, gossipy, or hysterical. Thus, they are perfect. 

My major shock was that I'd previously had the impression that Gilman believed in the healthiness of sexuality. I believed this partly because of a comment in the introduction to the Charlotte Perkins Gilman Reader, ed. Ann J. Lane, which suggested that Gilman was deeply sexually attracted to her first husband, but that he had felt overwhelmed by her expressions of desire in their Victorian-valued home. However, the women in Herland are completely asexual. They have no sexual desires at all (not surprising, since they have no men). I find it disturbing that Gilman might have been suggesting that sexual desires (outside procreation) may be a male phenomenon? It's also possible that Gilman felt the men had something to teach the Herlanders after all...they could teach them about healthy sexuality. At first, I interpreted the story this way. But after further thought, I decided that useful men are completely out of character in this book. I think she actually intended to convey the idea that sexuality-only-for-procreation was the most sensible and healthy alternative. But I could be wrong. The jury's still out on that one. :)

In her comments on Herland, Fence objected to the focus of the women on maternity. This issue (like the sex-only-for-procreation issue) is in stark contrast with the views of today's feminists. There's nothing wrong with maternal feelings, but most feminists feel that women should have a choice about maternity...and they may not WANT to be mothers. I think there's a little irony with Gilman's focus on maternity in Herland. She, herself, suffered from the censure of society after she left her daughter under the care of her first husband. Of course, the fact that she divorced her husband for "no good reason" exacerbated the censure (for more on that, read my comments on "The Yellow Wallpaper"). Perhaps the focus on maternity in Herland was expressions of guilt for her inability to care for her daughter due her own illness. I know depressed people DO tend to be wracked by misplaced guilt. 

At some level, I approved of the socialist views displayed by Gilman's allegory. I thought it was wonderful how everything was shared among the whole...there was no poverty and there were no insanely rich. This made the socialist education system work perfectly. Educating the children was considered fun by both the children AND the adults. Education was not a burden, but a joy which all members of society shared. However, I think the only way a socialist society like that would work is if everyone is equal in skill, and devoid of individuality and self-serving jealousies. These women WERE devoid of such horrific traits, but they were also really boring and annoyingly perfect.

For the most part, I did not enjoy reading Herland. I found the dialog grating due to the sickening perfection of the women and the irksome sexism of the men. The men's characters were very flat--their purpose was simply to present a contrast to the perfection of Herland. The three men came in three stereotypical varieties: gentlemanly to the point of sexism, brutishly sexist, and imperfect-but-somewhat-objective observer. Other than these characteristics, the men had no personality at all. The women also lacked character partly due to their obnoxious perfection, but also due to their nature as a social "we" instead of being unique individuals. In other words, the perfection and socialism merged them into one character with many names (with the slight exception of Alima who  brought Terry's brutish behavior on herself by having a "far-descended atavistic trace of the more marked femaleness, never apparent till Terry called it out.") In other words, the presence of men brought out the bad characteristics of women? Of COURSE they did. ;) 

See? Herland needed these men so that they could catalyze atavistic femaleness. This trait could then be bred out of the next generation. Men ARE useful after all! 

Seriously, though, the eugenics of Herland was a little disturbing. The officials of Herland apparently got to decide who was worthy of giving birth to none, one, or *gasp at the honor* TWO children. The officials also got to choose how much influence the mother had over the child's rearing. I didn't view this process as racist since I assumed they were all of the same race (at least, they were all white by the time the men arrived), but according to Wikipedia, "Gilman also believed old stock Americans of British colonial descent were giving up their country to immigrants who, she said, were diluting the nation's reproductive purity." So I can't discount the possibility that she DID mean that the women of Herland bred out the "less desirable" races. 

I think Herland was an interesting thought experiment, but I personally didn't enjoy reading it. If your'e interested in concept-driven allegories, especially feminist and socialist allegories, then this is the book for you. :D


Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The Classics Club


I've been doing a lot of wavering back and forth about joining The Classics Club. The point of this club is to “unite those of us who like to blog about classic literature, as well as to inspire people to make the classics an integral part of life.” To join the club, you have to choose at least 50 classics that you want to finish within the next 5 years. Then, as you complete them, you make a blog post about your progress. I wasn't sure if I wanted to join, because I knew that I would read more than 50 classics in 5 years, but did I want to stick to a specific list? However, I decided that I can probably do this. So here goes:


  1. Flatland, by Edwin A. Abbott
  2. Little Women, by Louisa May Alcott
  3. Emma, by Jane Austen (3/18/2014)
  4. Persuasion,  by Jane Austen
  5. Pride and Prejudice,  by Jane Austen (Norton Critical Edition) (10/18/2012)
  6. Sense and Sensibiltiy,  by Jane Austen (1/15/2013)
  7. The Martian Chronicles, by Ray Bradbury (9/14/2012)
  8. Wuthering Heights, by Emily Bronte
  9. Marrow of Tradition, by Charles W. Chesnutt
  10. The Last of the Mochicans, by James Fenimore Cooper
  11. On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin
  12. A Christmas Carol (12/22/2012)
  13. The Old Curiosity Shop, by Charles Dickens (12/31/2012)
  14. Invisible Man, by Ralph Ellison
  15. Wives and Daughters, by Elizabeth Gaskell
  16. Herland, by Charlotte Perkins Gilman (9/13/2012)
  17. Twice Told Tales, by Nathaniel Hawthorne
  18. The Blind Owl, by Sadegh Hedayat (9/23/2012)
  19. Green Mansions, W. H. Hudson
  20. Three Men in a Boat (To Say Nothing of the Dog), by Jerome K. Jerome (12/17/2012)
  21. Amerika, by Franz Kafka
  22. Metomorphosis,  by Franz Kafka
  23. The Trial,  by Franz Kafka
  24. To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
  25. Surprised by Joy, by C. S. Lewis (10/9/2012)
  26. Tales of H. P. Lovecraft
  27. Palace of Desire, by Naguib Mahfouz
  28. Palace Walk, by Naguib Mahfouz
  29. Sugar Street,  by Naguib Mahfouz
  30. Paradise Lost, by John Milton
  31. Gone with the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell
  32. Utopia, Thomas More
  33. Pale Fire, by Vladimir Nabokov (11/29/2012)
  34. Perrault’s Fairy Tales, Charles Perault
  35. Complete works of Edgar Allan Poe, by Edgar Allan Poe
  36. Catcher in the Rye, by J. D. Salinger
  37. Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley
  38. East of Eden, by John Steinbeck
  39. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, by Robert Louis Stevenson
  40. The New Annotated Dracula, by Bram Stoker
  41. Uncle Tom's Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe
  42. The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales, Maria Tartar
  43. Lord of the Rings, by J. R. R. Tolkien
  44. Silmarilion, by J. R. R. Tolkien
  45. The Hobbit, by J. R. R. Tolkien
  46. The Island of Doctor Moreau, by H. G. Wells
  47. The Time Machine, by H. G. Wells
  48. The War of the Worlds, by H. G. Wells
  49. A Room of Ones Own, by Virginia Woolf
  50. Orlando, by Virginia Woolf

Children's and YA Classics


Five years from today will be 9/11/2017

October 2012 Meme
November 2012 Meme
December 2012 Meme
April 2013 Meme

To see all the classics that I've reviewed so far (even prior to joining classics club), click here.