Classics for Beginners discussion

I started reading classics within the last 2 years. I did read some when I was a kid but forget them so they're due for a re-read.

I've been stuck reading off and on Great Expectations for over a year. I also abandoned Pride and Prejudice, don't think I'm a Jane fan.

What didn't you like about Pride and Prejudice?

Nicolle wrote: "What didn't you like about Pride and Prejudice?"

Nicolle, I know that's an unpopular opinion but for the life of me I couldn't get into the writing. It was completely not for me - flowery and overdone IMO. I will give another book of hers a shot.

Thoughts on Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

I enjoyed it - not completely perfect but I really dig the theme and am happy to have finally read it. Rated it 4/5 stars total.

Review:


I finally got to read a tale so well-known around the world. It wasn't a disappointment, although the Hyde in this 18th century piece of literature is less violent than later adaptions, likely due to the age of the times. The rigid Victorian background setting, as well as the Dr. being at the height of social esteem for his profession, drives home the point that a person would love to let go and unwind against the oppressing constraints. Always having to be polite, proper, careful, and courtly had to have grown old for some. I know it did the author himself, who took to hanging out in unruly areas for some release before leaving for more isolated surroundings where he could relax and let his hair down (so to speak).

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is an excellent literary study on the bizarre, complex dual natures inside humanity. Whether one thinks this duality is a plague of humanity, or else a relief, is up to debate and interpretation.

A shorter piece, it needs no further length to serve its purpose. It's told through the viewpoint of a friend, so that it's as if the reader is outside looking in, seeing a mystery unwind, makes the theme more potent. Being inside the mind of the man would not have worked as well in some ways, but would have worked better in others. The mystery would have been lost on what was going on, but on the positive side more emotion would have been felt as he struggled with his internal demons if we could have been an actual part of his thoughts.

Stevenson having it from an outside perspective made it more of a mysterious study and observation rather than an experience. Still it was easy to relate to as we all understand. The good Doctor Lanyard could not understand, clearly, as he was so horrified it was indicated it led to his death or else played a massive part. This could be because so many of the Victorian times were always in the mindset of being right and proper that it would not have even considered to some to let this side of themselves out, that this side even existed to be released.

Although 18th century literature, it is easy to read and not bogged down by over-flowery and drawn-out wording, so should appeal to audiences today. The theme is something that will always appeal, no matter the generation, especially healthier ones that have long recognized the dual nature of man.

Thoughts on Fahrenheit 451:

A timeless book that should always be remembered. I wasn't always able to lose myself in the story, but value it's message.

Review:

This bizarre little book speaks intensely without using words to do it about how sad lifes state can get when people become so cut off via slow censorship. When I was reading this book it felt like my mind was mentally all over the place, almost in some strange psychotic trance; heady stuff.

The world Bradbury weaved is psychologically twisted and strange - a nice place to study, but you wouldn't want to even VISIT there. The grimness and blah seeps off the pages and it seems everyone wants to die after awhile, where life is through the motions. The saddest thing is most don't even know that, they think they're happy of sorts but they're so braindead it's inevitable most of their "soul" has faded off before their body does. The ending was...well, very odd too. I don't want to provide spoilers, and I knew there was a war looming, but didn't expect THAT.

The big machine thing was just disturbing, particularly the mans death. There's no telling whatever ended up happening to the survivors, we can only assume. The memory of the books being held and retold when occasion warranted in the men's minds pleased me -- instead of ink being typed into pages and preserved, it seems that once read the words soaked into their brains somewhere to come out when needed again.

The best thing about the book was the end. Bradbury provided a few pages about the book and then ranted on censorship. Folks, he seemed incredible. His words were heartfelt, not held back, and just awesome. They inspire, heat, and ignite. Because of the authors words at the end more than this surreal book, makes me want to read more from him and only hope there is an autobiography somewhere out there he penned.

Thoughts of Animal Farm -

It was unusual that I came to this story having no idea at all what it was about. I ended up loving it and leaving impressed. Rated 4.5/5 Stars. A short piece of genius

Review

What an unusual, disturbing little story. Its simplicity holds much power and depth.

This...isn't an easy review to write. Hard to talk much about a book that's so open to interpretation. As you can see, the synopsis covers that it's a paradox of political angles. I do agree with this, and I also take from it random control through religion, personal and societal dominance, and greed.

It's likely a story where you'll discover something new with each read. A short thing, merely 112 pages, it packs a powerful punch. The pacing is swift and interesting, igniting chaos and controversy amongst the animals from get-go, finishing with a grim slamming of the book door. The setting never leaves the farm, it never needs to. They have their own world to survive in and that world is where the power and message of the story lives.

Would you believe I had no idea at all of the plot when opening the first page? Being deprived of most classics growing up, none of my friends or family read these either. It was a personal goal to discover these on my own, and I hadn't seen the movie nor the trailer. I knew it was probably about animals of course, and when I started reading it thought with the talking animals it was akin maybe to a type of childrens tale.

Anyway, I prefer going into the classics without foreknowledge or prejudice. Makes it fresher to me, unbiased by listening to others or previous experiences. It's a good thing I haven't seen many movies about the classics either, as I'm sure these would either taint or change my perception of them.

The short novel, bottom line, is about how corrupting power can be. Absolutely control and corruption when too much is given, the imbalances are raised, and too much blind loyalty to leadership. The animals initial goal was to run the farm themselves, without outside interference or help, seeing each other as equals of a sort, every animal doing an equal share of work and production toward a unified goal, similar to a utopian communism.

At brief glance it may appear the writing is ridiculously simple, and it is. Kept this way by Orwell, the structure and events unfolding are carefully arranged, using skillful writing and almost childlike simplicity to fully and easily illustrate the chaotic, complex unraveling of this 'society.' Sometimes when using a moral message this deep, profound, common, and structured, it can work better laying it out in allegories.

Religion is clear as day also with its play in control, especially with the Raven Moses, who keeps speaking of "Sugarcandy Mountain" in the sky, where one day everyone would be able to rest from their weary labors. Some have pointed out that while Old Major was preaching about changes needed within the structure, Moses was sleeping in the barn. It can be seen as a play on how the church has been accused of "sleeping" or turning a blind eye to communism.

I recommend this short novel to everyone. The message is amazingly potent, the characters fascinating, it's power isn't in preachy writing but effective literary prowess, and it's a classic that will stand the test of time.

I still haven't seen the movie but I did search out the trailer after finishing the book. Will let you know what I think when I get around to seeing it.

There's also always this haunting last line the book concludes with. I don't care much for Minecraft but my fiance and son have me play it sometimes. I built a little literary world and one of the farms was animal farm. I put this last line on a few signs in the yard:

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which."

Thoughts on Catcher in the Rye -

At first the long, rambling paragraph style and unusual protagonist made it hard to get into, but I ended up being blown away by the book and falling in love with both the story and character. I know many disagree, but to me this is an excellent classic that I won't forget.

Rated it 4.5/5 Stars

Review:


It's strange, but I agree with the tagline of this novel for once. Usually it's just there for dramatic effect. "You'll never forget this story, this story will haunt you for life....,etc", but this one actually has proven true. I read this months ago and now that I'm adding the reviews to the blog from Goodreads and my mental reservoir, I have to say that this book truly has never left me. I think of it at least once every two weeks. I have no idea why really, but I think there's such a total genuineness about it that it really gets inside you.

The book isn't perfect because of the bizarre writing style, which would turn some off. I know some don't even keep going. You should push through any awkward growing pains, though, as it did prove to be so rewarding. The main character of Holden Caulfield is hard to get into at first, since he initially seems to be a smart-alek, dirty-mouthed, negative kid who doesn't care about much. It becomes clear after awhile he's troubled, lonely, compassionate, and actually a sweetheart.

You end up feeling for him, caring about what happens, and trying to figure out how he can turn himself around, or if he even wants to and has reason enough to try. He is certainly not the typical character to read about, and this type of character is another reason I feel reading fiction encourages the growth of empathy in people so much.

The scene that really stands out to me is the sadness of the hotel room scenario between Holden, the girl, and her pimp. How tragic and I felt for him as his youth really came through.

It's a completely character-orientated novel. There's a strange opening to the book where not much is going on, and little ever happens action-wise. It's mainly an introverted thinking novel. You don't get the sense that the boy is troubled until a few chapters in, other than he's failing out of school. I would have liked a longer ending also, to see his parents reactions and more details of what happened next.

Overall this is a worthy classic - I felt for the character and thought it held interesting insight. Language is pretty graphic so some parents may not want their kids reading it if too young. There's no sex or anything violent, although their are several adult implications. For the life of me I can't understand some of the blame from criminals on this book - the person is troubled, fragile, and lonely, but they are not violent, twisted, or evil.

I rated this four stars after I read it because of some of the overly long paragraphs and ramblings got a bit much sometimes, and I would have enjoyed a little more action and thought editing slightly would have helped. However, if I rated it now from memory alone would have went for the big 5-star label. It's just one of those books that truly stays with you

Thoughts on Of Mice and Men -

Wow, what a powerful book. Likely my favorite classic. It's a book I'll never shake off and was one of the first classics I read as an adult two years ago.

I have since sought out more Steinbeck and hope his other books are as good.

This emotionally stunning book has become a classic for good reason. Steinbeck employs a direct, everyday language, keeping the point at all times, using only scenes which enhance the main moral (or immoral depending how you see it) messages, and while this tale is not fiercely fast-paced, it is always riveting, always important.

Characterization is powerful, yet this is a plot-focused story rather than a character-focused one. The goal is to be realistic about the men and not necessarily to get you to like any of them much. The more sympathetic of the group is the tragic Lennie, who's low IQ and mental incompetence results in him accidentally screwing about everything up. People, typically with low tolerance and quick judgement and blood-thirst, fail to understand the scope of his childlike limitations as he innocently attempts functioning in a depressing, adult world.

George, always the caregiver of Lennie, has average intelligence. Both men work hard to get little in life. They're both stuck within their own mental, class and societal limitations. The book is driven by George's promise to always take care of Lennie, that one day soon they will get their own place, a place with animals and peace. For a time George himself may even believe this, as do many of the men who want to join in their dream. Some are skeptical, some just as joyfully hopeful as Lennie, which is even more depressing.

It seems some hold issues about Curley's wife, that she didn't even have a name, and that she was referred to as the husbands property in a way. She was also shown as being manipulative, sluttish, and dishonest. However, I think Steinbeck did this not to disrespect women but to emphasize the story's larger moral message. They were all stuck, for different reasons, in their roles they couldn't climb out of. On the other side of the coin, the negative aspects of her personality helped Steinbeck also showcase his other point - others messing with Lennie, innocent Lennie, and resulting in tragedy as they interact with him.

It is not just she who is a victim, but all of them. The focus is this, not repression of only one minority.

I consider Of Mice and Men an anti-change book. This is especially interesting since almost all novels embrace change and the wonders, miracles, and plot-forward propelling aspects of it. Here Steinbeck is showing that the American dream was NOT obtainable by everyone, that the speech that all could climb up and have their own home and dreams was not accurate for the lower level working man. Despite hard work, saving what could be saved, and struggle, it could not always be dished out to everyone.

Despite all their attempts, and that they have dreamed their entire lives for the same thing, they could not always get the dream. Some lost hope completely long ago, but other characters had a rekindling of it and tried yet again.

It could at first be argued about George changing with how it ended with Lennie during the last chapter, but with deeper inspection it proved still the same, no change. George kept his promise to always take care of Lennie the best he could, to protect him, despite whatever circumstances life threw his way.

Thoughts on Rebecca -

Rebecca is a stunning gothic that deserves to be a classic. Love the story, the characters, and the cliffhanger ending. I haven't read the sequel yet

My Review:


"Last night I dreamt I went to Manderley again"....A strong opening line that many have heard, even without reading the book.

Rebecca is one of those "classic" novels that no one I know in person has heard of, yet is apparently famous. After reading it, I see there's a good reason it should be so. Sometimes the aged style wilts the book slightly, although it's marvelously gothic. Wicked suspense permeates the second half, with ample emotional wrenching being present in the beginning. The first chapter is the toughest as it primarily deals with just description for many pages, but after this it goes smoother.

Overall the writing is stunning. DeMaurier has a special knack of poetically weaving together dreamy-like sequences. It's easy to relate to the cloud-climbing protagonist simply because your own head finds its easier to seek this mindset after enough flowing of the author's words. It's a unique style that stands out and takes the breath away some. When action is fierce I at times wish some of the rambling fantasizing would cease, but for the most part it's absent when it should be. I'm curious on reading more with this author, she really was quite talented.

As for the plot, it's purely gothic. The protagonist is not a typical headstrong individual, but rather a more submissive, inexperienced young woman, unsure of her confidences. Rather than having a stunning beauty, she is plain and unadorned, not caring for hair fashions and clothing. It's alluded to the fact of how plain she is, and how she minds this, but it is not a stumbling block for long. The ending of the novel is a cliffhanger of sorts, even if we can surmise what has happened from the opening chapters. It is a hectic, frantic rush of an ending in the last paragraphs, leaving off with an ominous and unsettled feeling, which pretty much sums up this entire book.

I dug Maxim, at times he was aloof and cold but I found him intriguing. The infamous Mrs. Danvers was mad and dominating without the author having to put too much obviousness into play. Really, the maids presence does not take up too much page time, but still manages to be present somehow in the mind of the protagonist and readers, nice. Supporting characters are sympathetic and enjoyable props to the heroine's trials.

Anxious to read the sequel and hope it's just as good. This is a classic that you shouldn't pass up, especially if you are into the gothic trend.

Dracula - 4 stars, close 4.5

What impressed me the most about Dracula was it's beginning. Surprisingly eerie for it's age, excellent build up and realistically rich tension and atmosphere. Loved the ending as well. The middle falters a bit but a great book overall.

Review:




It's easy to see why this book made such an eternal impression. From the gothic ambience of the fog, castle, wolves, the Victorian language and repressed times melding with the twisted foreign dangers, the courageous men surrounding their "protected" and somewhat sheltered women, Dracula wasn't the first vampire book but it was the more influential and memorable.

The first half left me riveted. There were genuinely eerie moments, which is surprising to me since it's 18th century literature. This could show as a good argument that while films age and can lose their touches of fright as their audience ages, that literature doesn't age the same entirely. The imaginative wanderings that come when you read something make it scary even now, while what could be shown on screen back then wouldn't create the same effect to visually-jaded, twentieth century movie-goers.

The most memorable scenes in the beginning was the eerie realization as Jonathan Harker looks out his window, seeing Dracula in the castle looking down, then quickly crawling along the castle walls like a lizard. Dracula seems to be taking Harker's identity, never intending for the man to escape the castle ever, appearing behind him when Harker is looking at a glass shard, where only Harker's reflection is shown and Dracula is there but not. The crucifix keeps Dracula at bay from feeding on him, but he dresses in Harker's clothes to steal into the village, kidnap a child to bring back to the castle, and when the mother runs to the castle in the night, thinking of Harker as the monster, Harker hears Dracula to command the wolves to come and finish the woman and get rid of her. The other scene that really stands out is when Harker finds Dracula in his coffin in the first part, daring to kill him not knowing how, and Dracula is looking upward with glassy, dead-seeming eyes until suddenly his head turns on his neck with a small smile. Eerie!

Once we shift to London, where the foreign horrors of Dracula have transferred to London's polite society, we are greeted by Lucy and Mina and that they are both about to be married. Lucy has three suitors to choose from, two breaking her heart as she must turn them down in wait for the third man, Arthur, whom she loves. The downfall of Lucy is long and almost winded, as Van Helsing is brought into the picture by Dr. Seward for advice and out of desperation. They are not able to save the beautiful, cherished Lucy, and this urges them even further when they find Mina to help and transfer their protectiveness to.

Renfield is one of the more fascinating pieces of the book, shifting from bizarre fancies where he traps flies to eat them, then traps flies to spiders, then spiders to birds, consuming all as the "blood is the life." His sometimes raving, maniacal actions take turn to a decent, sane man, as he is a pawn in the bizarre game of Dracula. He goes from a revolting character to a sympathetic one, as do all the Vampire victims, including Dracula himself.

The center half toward the end starts sadly faltering. It's long-winded and repetitive amongst the group of conspirators. There is literally at least a hundred pages without Dracula where the doctors and guardians talk and plot amongst themselves about what must be done to end this danger. The dialogue is completely Victorian and grows grating as it continues without enough of the sinister, more fascinating elements of the book present in the form of the vampire or any other dangers.

The very end is a redemption, though, as staking Dracula himself and his legion of women is also a redemption. The ending battle is quick and to the point, ending sadly for one of the main characters, who gave his life to the battle. It's ironic that when Lucy is staked after taken to feeding on children, Van Helsing and the rest insist on her beloved, Arthur, to be the one to do it. Mina insists in the book that one of them should kill her if she turns, too, but that she prefers for it to be her husband, Jonathan. At the end, when Dracula is killed, it is Jonathan who wants the most revenge since the diabolical count has taken his revenge on Mina, his wife, but it is Quincy who lands the killing blow through the heart. Strange since he was never in love with Mina like he was with Lucy, and was a suitor that, while Lucy cried over turning down his proposal, saw in him a good man as he vowed to her that she forever turned him into a true friend and admirer by her honest and compassionate refusal.

I read the intro to this book and also the afterword, which I skip a lot of the times. The intro was especially interesting as it chronicles the journeys of Dracula in book form and even movies through the ages. The ending afterword focuses on the subtle commentaries of the book. Honestly I think too much is read into some of it. Reminds me of when someone even said Jaws was so popular because of the vaginal life mouth *eye roll* Sometimes a shark is just a shark!

It is true that blood is a central focus of the book, as it was a big fear of the times anyway. Blood is donated a lot to Lucy to save her life from different men, where transfusions were very dangerous for the times, not to mention they had no idea then of the dangers of blood types! Psychological analysis has read into Lucy as the men able to put their blood into her in a sexual terms way, but perhaps they were just trying to save her life and this is far reaching! I do have to admit that the strange scene with Dracula over the bed with Mina, forcing her to feed on his chest, was bizarrely erotic.

Religious overtones are highly present with the communion wafer, the "Holy Circle", the freeing of the souls to their actual resting places rather in the damned vampire bodies, the crucifixes worn and held out for Holy protection, and the references to blood being the life and communion.

Dracula keeps some of his lines that were famous in the movie "The children of the night, what sweet music they make!" and "I bid you welcome." Sadly I didn't find such great lines as "Ah, to be truly dead, that must be marvelous!" as invented for the film. In the book he still wins as a more impressive figure though, as when shown he's more realistically mysterious, evil, twisted, and vindictive.

Overall an excellent book any classic fan should read. The Victorian dialogue can grow a bit stale and some of the middle is too stagnant, but the beginning and the end and the build-up journey are fantastic, memorable, and powerfully impressive.

Invisible Man -

The book was an intriguing story to read and I liked H.G. Wells fantastic imagination and dialogue skills. His writing style impressed me, so I will definitely be seeking out further pieces he's written. I think a little more could have been done with The Invisible Man, but overall it's a timeless classic for a reason.

Review

The Invisible Man is character orientated in its own way, but by taking a distant tone to illustrate the isolation of genius from society, the corruption of power. HG Wells makes sure the man isn’t even that likeable, although of course my silly heart felt compassion sometimes anyway.

If you’re familiar with the Universal classic movie, the first chapters – that is his time at the Inn – is pretty identical in sequence and outcome in the film. Thankfully the shrew innkeeper woman wasn’t as madly annoying – worked in the movie but with the book it would have felt out of place. After he leaves in the inn, the story becomes a tale all of its own, leaving out most of the film events.

There is no redeeming romantic interest, no well-respected friends or colleagues waiting by his side in support. Apparently the point of the story is that his isolation has made him seek out further isolation. In the book he’s an albino and generally despised before invisibility. By the time he has taken his potions and transformed, he cares not for society; his drive to succeed with his advances is not spurred on by needing acceptance.

The theme and beginning are well imagined. The ending was tragic and excellent. Dialogue – I loved it when the Invisible man conversed with others, his intelligence shows through with his madness. I do think HG Wells could have done more with the story material, especially during the middle, which lagged a bit at times.

I enjoyed HG Well’s writing style – looking forward to trying more of his stuff.

I just love the dialogue in HG Wells, and would recommend The Time Machine, if you haven't read it already. I also agree with you about Rebecca. That kind of character very often gets under my skin an just annoys me, but in Rebecca she was so well-written I truly felt with her.

And please explain the whole jaws/vaginal life mouth thing (from your Dracula review). I'm not really sure I get what you mean, and googling it didn't really help, but I was so intrigued that I would love to see what it really ment.

Marie Marcelle wrote: "I just love the dialogue in HG Wells, and would recommend The Time Machine, if you haven't read it already. I also agree with you about Rebecca. That kind of character very often gets under my skin..."

I believe I do have the time machine to read. I definitely want to read more of him soon.

Oh, the Jaws thing lol, it was from a series of weird articles from books about horror movie theories:

From her essay Horror and the Monstrous-Feminine: An Imaginary Abjection by Barbara Creed:

"First, the archaic mother -constructed as a negative force - is represented in her phantasmagoric aspects in many horror texts, particularly the science fiction horror film. We see her as the gaping, cannibalistic bird's mouth in THE GIANT CLAW (1957); the terrifying spider of THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN (1957); the toothed vagina / womb of JAWS (1975); and the fleshy, pulsating womb of THE THING (1981) and POLTERGEIST (1982).
What is the common to all these images of horror is the voracious maw,
the mysterious black hole that signifies the female genitalia as a monstrous sign threatening to give birth to equally horrific offspring as well as threatening to incorporate everything in its path."

Other weird ones:

THE REAL MEANING BEHIND PHANTOM OF THE OPERA???

According to author David J. Skal, in his book THE MONSTER SHOW, this is one of the real meanings behind the original version of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.

The famous scene in which actress Mary Philbin rips the mask from Eriks face as he pumps his subterranean organ is an assault on the audience verging on visual rape. Eriks bulging bald head and stiff carriage give him the aspect of a ruined penis that can no longer seduce, only repulse the beloved.

taken from a book on John Carpenter called ORDER IN THE UNIVERSE by Robert C. Cumbow.

"Christine is the embodiment of evil from the moment she rolls off the assembly line. The film opens as an engine bursts to life and idles through the main credits. All we see is the "V" on Christine's grill - an image that will persist throughout the film, linking "Victory" with a suggestion of the female genitalia as Christine is seen as passionate lover, treacherous dominatrix and, finally, all-powerful witch."

"the mysterious black hole that signifies the female genitalia" O.O

Wow. Just wow.

I do love symbols, but just because you have mommy-issues doesn't mean everyone else has them.

Though that these are from different writers is a bit disturbing :/

Marie Marcelle wrote: ""Though that these are from different writers is a bit disturbing :/ "

Some feminist psychological theories are pretty out there.

I guess people can "see" whatever they want if they want it hard enough. XD

Though it's much more interesting when it's something other than wo/men are evil or the oedipus syndrom. You can't really do anything with that.

Gone With The Wind:

I figured I would at least enjoy this book, but had no idea how much I would fall in love with it. Now one of my favorite books.

Review:


The civil war. A beautiful woman at the height of selfishness. The love and death of home and land. Society wound up so tight an improper wink could undo you. Destruction, tragedy, political corruption, truth, lies, life, death, love, loss, big changes, new beginnings, intermingled with never ending cycles. All of this helps make Gone with the wind what it is: an epic novel that will never be forgotten, that will forever be loved, cherished, and discovered with delight by new readers for ages.

I am one of those new readers. In my early thirties I’ve finally read the rather intimidating sized tomb that speaks of southern charm twisted with the civil war and all the tragedies that surrounded it. Of course I’ve seen the film – several times – and I always loved the story. Scarlett O’Hara is far from the typical heroine. She’s easier to hate than to enjoy, her thought processes are understandable but leave the reader cold. Her motivations are for the sake of survival, but her climb toward the top still leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Even before she does what she has to because she ‘has to’, she’s not likeable. Her spoiled demeanor and enjoying being the main twinkle in every man’s eye at the barbecue, taking away boyfriends from all the women without a twinge of conscience, makes it easier to sympathize with the rest than with her.

Margaret Mitchell did a unique thing by taking an unlikeable woman and making it her story. It’s sort of a destructive, moral lesson tale that you can’t look away from, a literary train wreck impossible to ignore. While the movie had her spawn one beautiful, endearing child, the book showed her to have three kids instead. One from Charles, one from Frank, and finally one from Rhett. She was a horrible mother and some of the more heart wrenching scenes was poor Wade trying to psychologically adapt during the war. Ella is rarely mentioned and holds no scenes at all (unusual). I was especially irked when Scarlett was told a terrible tragedy by someone trying to help her, who sympathized with her plight, but was impatient through the tragedy to be on with her business. Even if Scarlett isn’t likeable with her thoughts, her motivations, and her outlook, she’s still fun as hell to read about.

Rhett shines as a fascinating leading man. When he’s on the page, the paper almost shines. He steals the scenes and his dialogue especially amused me. Some say they are both evil in reviews and neither deserve happiness; I disagree. To me Rhett did have heart, he did have feelings, but he still enjoyed shunning a society which shunned him first. He spoke from intellectual insight and common sense, not letting falsely inflated southern pride puff him up to rush into a battle that had such poor odds. He didn’t mind speaking his mind, no matter how unpopular that mindset was. He did eagerly make money off societies failing, and without apology reveled in the riches he made from the war where it could be made. Still, he clearly hated the war, he warned against it, he hated the tragedy sowed. He was respectful to Mammie and her role in Scarlett’s life, he loved his daughter, he genuinely loved the spoiled woman his heart became cursed by.

Gone with the Wind is over 1000 pages, and inside those pages the author manages to somehow cram an amazing amount of events while expertly shuffling intriguing inner dialogue and emotional moments that soared without growing boring, dull, or lagging the tale. Her writing style is easily absorbed, she had a natural knack with dialogue, and the scenes merged together flawlessly. She took care to give different insights during the civil war from all sides that I hadn’t considered before.

The ending is haunting. It was the suiting ending that fit the story, summed up the moral lesson, brought to head the tragic tale of a spoiled main character reaping her spoils. But…even so, the romantic in me yearns for a happy ending she doesn’t deserve. I think it’s mainly because my heart laid with Rhett and it was such a bitter turnout. The ending speech and exchange with the light dying from his eyes shook me. In interviews Mitchell was asked if they reunited - in one version she said no, in another she said maybe. Scarlett's determination was fierce, but Rhett's mind was also all his own. The child’s death was painful. The war was bitter and horrible and all that war really is. Society was so twisted and strange back then, which I find with most historical novels. They would hate to be born in our age, and I thank God I wasn’t born in theirs.

Gone with the Wind didn’t disappoint me at all. It’s impossible to sum up what makes this book so special. I included just some of the traits and events, but there are so many more, the characters being so rich they easily come to life in the reader’s mind, the tragedy is truly felt, the lessons experienced even if those with a conscience don’t need to experience them. It’s easy to see why this story has become such a legend that holds through the ages. The movie suffered a bit from melodrama, but the book not at all. I can’t recommend the novel highly enough. Sure, she didn't write this during the civil war, but the age in which is was written was antiquated with its moral outlook. Outstanding work by a talented author trying so many different sorts of viewpoints and personalities, especially in such a sheltered age.

Hi Erin, I read Gone With The Wind a few months ago and completely agree with you. I have never been able to get through the movie (I have just seen bits of it) but I'm really glad I wasn't able to and read the book. It is one of the best books I have ever read. I followed it by reading North & South (also an excellent read).

Arlene wrote: "Hi Erin, I read Gone With The Wind a few months ago and completely agree with you. I have never been able to get through the movie (I have just seen bits of it) but I'm really glad I wasn't able to..."

Glad to hear great minds think alike :)

For me the book is absolute brilliance. Whilst I loved the film and could identify with the characters, in the book you get to know them much better. Whilst I can't help liking Scarlet, who could be Becky Sharp's sister from Thackeray's Vanity Fair (absolute MUST READ Classic), I found her motives and feelings were brilliantly described in the book, which just isn't possible in a film.

A Separate Peace




I didn't even know this was a classic until I started reading it. Hadn't heard of it before last year. I liked it in one way, another not so much.


Review:


3.5

“There was no harm in taking aim, even if the target was a dream.”

Gene, you suck. It didn’t take long at all for me to despise you.

I had no idea what to expect going into ‘A Separate Peace’. I’d never heard of it before an enthusiastic friends-of-the-library volunteer recommended it to me when I was shopping at the yearly book sale. Since then I’ve learned it’s actually a classic that’s slipped under my reader’s radar. The length isn’t intimidating and the book reads quickly, accompanied by a slightly distant yet talented writing style that could just as easily pen a book of poetry with its technique.

The first chapter/story was difficult to get into - story didn't start off with much of a bang, more of a literary whimper. The author’s style didn't suit me much but now it's grown on me as the story has grown. The coming of age tale is set during WWII at a sheltered boy’s school. There the boy’s face themselves, each other, and the future. Before even entering the war, they are corrupted by it, psychologically, physically, spiritually.

It paints a glorified picture of WWII, where, if you can’t serve, it’s considered a disaster and dishonor and lifelong failure. The school is set in an isolated way, filled with talk of joining the war and enlisting when they come of age, and until then sheltered from parents and outside peers, joining in the world’s efforts from news bulletins, the radio, and encouraging professors. This classic takes the world war and instead focuses on the true war – that within ourselves, a silent war no others see but that an individual must face.

Gene is a king in the school, a brain who’s best friends with the brawn, the top athlete who excels so naturally at things he doesn’t always want credit for them. They have a unique friendship that Gene starts questioning, as the inevitable testosterone-filled challenging nature of males intertwines with the bonding of friends.

There is a disaster – a sad one - that happens. I could even forgive this, maybe, if Gene didn’t later turn from the tales of another tortured friend. I found little sympathy in the character, but there was thankfully ample growth. At the end, it’s so haunting, so consuming, that it’s poetic justice.

Overall this story didn’t get into my psyche immediately, but once it did, the painful rollercoaster kept speeding up. Slow writing didn’t make a difference since I couldn’t turn away from the crash I knew was coming. Such a bleak and brutal novel, I can see why it’s termed a classic. There is little that is uplifting; of course it’s never a rule a book must be, but the bleakness is painful to read, which is suitable for a novel set during the false glories of wars.

1984



Review:



3 Stars

Unfortunately this turned out to be one of those classics I didn't enjoy as much as most of my fellow readers.

The story is a sobering, complex one - a future world where we are controlled to the letter of the law. Disturbing stuff. I don't believe we will ever live in a world exactly like this, but I can see the nods towards some of that direction. The merit of the book isn't to be rated by the realism, anyway, but by the vision and how well Orwell managed to write it.

The torture scenes at the end were long and unsettling. I'm sure that, like the men responsible said, anyone would have broken. There is a disturbing reality in that by itself. Whether controlled by torture, deception, trickery, or upbringing, the disturbing result is all the same. You end up hating the civilians as much as those in power.

It's not a government who is playing god - rather, it's a government who has shelved the notion of God and replaced him.

The story is a fascinating one, and the characters likeable enough - the issue for me was the pacing. I think Orwell took much too long in certain segments and build up. He took a main character who is dreary and beaten down (of course), but with a small spark of defiance. That small spark is why he's focused on, but will it be burned out?

The depressing story told through a defeated tone seemed to ramble on for a good section of the novel, making it hard to hold my interest for every section. And I do think of myself as a reader who is kind to slower-paced novels - my patience with books is generally high. This one didn't rub me right with it's execution.

That said, the political message, the frightening control, all of these make this a novel worth mentioning, reading, and remembering. I don't find it a work of art in literary style, but it is eerily creative, complex, and certainly deserves it's classic label.

THE GRAPES OF WRATH
by John Steinbeck



Rating: 4 stars



Another classic under my belt (Go me.) After being impressed by Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men, I was happy to dig into this one. At first I was worried it wouldn't be for me, with the rustic dialogue and slow opening, but I pushed through it and ended up finding out another winner from Steinbeck.

It's not a book you can read quickly or fly through, as its subtle magic slowly works but does ultimately work well. The characters are forced from their homes onto the torturous trail to California, where promises of land, riches, and food await. At least they think they do. Because even if man advertised salvation, it's wrapped up with usual misdirection and downright deceit.

While Steinbeck tells the tale through the focus of one family, it was a hardship that affected thousands of others. The main family is ... interesting. Mama Joad is the backbone of the clan and ends up playing a bigger part than who I thought would be the main hero of the story, Tom. Some of the characters have hidden strength, others are ready to brawl at the tip of a hat. Some are weak but find their strength, while others literally lay down and die long before the book is over.
And yes, one just ditches the group and his pregnant wife completely!

What makes this book shine isn't the terrible hardships (although that needs to be read about and acknowledged), but the perseverance of the human spirit and staying loyal to family through trial. When I started out reading this book, I saw how miserable their situation was and mused how fortunate we are in today's times with all we've blessed with here. At the end of the book I'm thinking how much stronger these people seem compared to us. If we fell now, this generation, into the predicaments they're facing, I think we'd handle it worse, weaker. Not as much pride now in that ending thought.

I was totally for an uprising, no matter how fruitless it may seem. The people branding the controlling whip were nauseating and I had no sympathy for them.

The odd ending leaves the book a strange note - there's no guaranteed promise since we know they may very well still die and succumb to starvation or the cruel people running the cruel show. I'm thinking it's more of a take on supporting life and helping out your fellow man when things go upside down. Either that, or Steinbeck just wanted to write a strange shocking ending that he knew would raise reader eyebrows.

No matter how simple and straightforward this family is, all people hold their unique complexities. This piece of history was yet another shadow of shame on the history of humankind.

ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST
by Ken Kesey



Rating: 3 stars

“Man, when you lose your laugh you lose your footing.”

Mental illness is always sad, I don’t care how it’s portrayed. It’s a serious subject that only deserves serious treatment, but even the insane have a sense of humor.

One Flew over the Cuckoo’s nest worked so well because the characterization was firm, realistic, detailed, and perfectly coordinated to play out the story. Told through the narrative viewpoint of Chief Broom, a silent man who pretends like he can’t speak or hear, he relays the horrors of the institute, the rigidity of the rules weighed down under the iron thumb of Nurse Ratched. R.P. McMurphy swoons in to shake up the institution, inject life into the dead characters, dare against the rules, remind them of their immortality within mortality.

I’ve seen in discussions that perhaps ‘Big Nurse’ isn’t as bad as portrayed and that it was through the colored glasses of the characters that this picture was painted. That places like this only survive so well if placed under inflexible rules, stiff guidelines, no mercy for momentary lapses. The arguers have a point that adherence to rules and such must be used so that places where the mentally ill or dangerous dwell can be as safe as possible…but I disagree with their arguments about Big Nurse.

To me she is perfectly legal but perfectly horrid and immoral, a big problem about what is wrong with society, those in power who let it go to their head, emotional sadism that sucks out its resources from those who don’t know how to defend themselves and who do not have strong voices rooting for their protection. I think most agree to hate "Big Nurse" and people like her. I think those like her who cruelly suck the life and joy out of others are among the worse of people churned out by the human gene meat grinder.

Of course I knew already this would be sad – there was a spoiler for me. I hate spoilers with a passion, but in this case it at least cushioned the blow and I wasn’t as shell shocked. A bleak ending for a bleak subject, a bleak book, but there may be light at the end of the tunnel for one sole character?

On the downside, while I dug the story and characters, Ken Kesey’s writing isn’t my drug of choice. It was hard to get into the story due to the style, and I found myself irked by the subject matter because it’s something I get passionately enraged against in real life anyway.

Very gripping, emotional, and disturbing book. Not without flaws, but the story itself won’t leave me.

The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway



Rating: 2 stars

“I can't stand it to think my life is going so fast and I'm not really living it.”

Some classics speak to a reader, others don't. I wanted to like this one more than I did, and at first I figured I would for it started well. While I initially dug Hemingway's writing style, as the story droned on almost pointlessly, it lost its finesse. It doesn't help that the events seem stacked together with no real sense of flow or purpose, which ironically is likely the purpose of the story.

It's a look at the characters regressive lives, their interactions with each other while they exist in their situations. They go from different bars and restaurants to drink and speak of little, random things, shifting aimlessly. They do fish awhile, and finally bullfights (which I hate on moral principle). The bar hopping is almost continuous as they make sure to numb their existences through alcohol.

I don't see anything admirable about Brett - why so many are attracted to her I don't know. All the characters have a sense of emptiness in their lives that they can't feel, I sense this as the main theme, but it wasn't interesting for me.

I'm clueless why this one is so highly enjoyed, but I guess we all run into books like that from time to time. It's said that Hemingway did well in capturing the Lost Generation's lives and all that, but perhaps I'm too ignorant of the history and the system of that time to fully appreciate it, or else I just grew too bored too often to care much.

The Family Under the Bridge
by Natalie Savage Carlson, Garth Williams (Illustrator)

Rating: 5 Stars

A truly heartwarming story for all ages. I fell in love the aged hobo who was content in life just being in his version of freedom, the adorable dog who should have been white but wasn't, Jo-Jo, the small children with their cute questions and wonders. Suzy who wanted school, Paul who would have been just as happy never going back.

The book has different turns and events in the decently sized children's story - from different homes to different discoveries. Some nudges of coy humor slip in (like with the tree!, or the food that "fell" into the cart) and the fortune at the end is gained not through just luck but coming together. Definitely a beautiful Christmas story- it may not be a direct Christmas story, but it happens at Christmas/New Year time so it's going in the books as that for me. His prayer was touching as he said he's forgotten how to pray, but not beg.

Armand starts the book by saying he avoids children because he worries about emotional involvement - and at the end it's not just the characters heartstrings that were tugged by the children, but mine too.

As a bonus, detailed pencil drawings decorated the book, adding a lot to the story.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain




3.5 stars

“That is just the way with some people. They get down on a thing when they don’t know nothing about it.”

It looks like Huckleberry Finn will be yet another classic I kind of fail in rating wise.

As a wee one I recall doing a mini, poorly written biography on Mark Twain for school. Why I picked him, who knows, I hadn’t read his stuff. That didn’t change until now either, where my first encounter is Huckleberry Finn, a book I rushed into enthusiastically, convinced I’d embrace this long-praised classic like a well-known friend. Sadly this wasn’t exactly the case.

There’s no argument, none, that this isn’t an awesome adventure tale. It pushed the envelope and was written full rush, the author without fear showing an abused child who runs away from his elders, a victim of fate who messes around with people, personal property, and petty crime. Certainly not a conventional protagonist for that time period, Huckleberry (what a name!) is far from perfect but that’s a star in his favor since I don’t care for one-dimensional characters. He’s not that – he has a conscience, he’s good in spirit, but also delightfully rebellious, ignorant due to circumstance, and enjoys a fib or two.

“What's the use you learning to do right when it's troublesome to do right and ain't no trouble to do wrong, and the wages is just the same?”

While the book wins with adventurous tales and the people Huck and Jim meet along their voyage, the dangers they escape, the near snares they avoid, my interest waned during the down time. It wasn’t the fault of the pacing, but rather my unfamiliarity with the old fashioned writing style. Dialogue is convincing and Twain full-on dishes out convincing dialect, yet this can grow irritating after awhile if I have to spend too much brain time away from the book trying to figure out what’s being said.

For a political soap-box story, this book has been commonly banned because of the “n” word usage. Here I see reviews disliking the book for that word as well.

I say, with this detestable word, that hiding from history or altering it (such as changing the word to robot in certain modern versions) doesn't do favors. It is history, it was the reality word then. If I read a modern book where this word was embraced, I would be offended. But with this book, published in the 1800s, I am not. Ironically it was banned for being anti-slavery when first released. It’s kind of strange now people see the word as too close to racism for comfort, so shun it for the opposite reasons now.

If the book kept this word up and promoted slavery of the times, I’d be more sympathetic to the outcries on not reading it. In reality, the author makes the situation of Jim a grim one, making the reader sympathize with the positive character of the story, see how horrible slavery was, and paints a nasty picture of it. It’s showing reality of those times but showing it as horrible, not something to be encouraged.

Overall it’s a worthy story, I can see why it gained it’s classic status – good characterization, interesting developments, a nice wrapped-up ending, unconventional plot surprises for the time period – it’s just a little difficult to stay enthralled with due to the time period I’m in now and the limited attention span I’ve developed.