Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens - Book Review # 128

Oliver Twist

by Charles Dickens

The story of the orphan Oliver, who runs away from the workhouse only to be taken in by a den of thieves, shocked readers when it was first published. Dickens's tale of childhood innocence beset by evil depicts the dark criminal underworld of a London peopled by vivid and memorable characters—the arch-villain Fagin, the artful Dodger, the menacing Bill Sikes and the prostitute Nancy. Combining elements of Gothic Romance, the Newgate Novel and popular melodrama, Dickens created an entirely new kind of fiction, scathing in its indictment of a cruel society, and pervaded by an unforgettable sense of threat and mystery.
From goodreads.com

I’ve being staying away from Charles Dickens, because I’ve always considered him to be a British version of Fyodor Dostoyevsky: brilliant, however impossible to read without wanting to kill all characters at first and yourself afterwards. I don’t know where I got this impression from. I don’t know what made me draw parallels between these two authors. Nonetheless, this notion was strong and inviolable.

I only read one Dickens before – A Christmas Carol. I loved it dearly and found no resemblances with Dostoyevsky’s works, which made me doubt my impression until I found out that A Christmas Carol wasn’t your typical Dickens. I was mingling with the idea of reading Dickens for a while and only about two weeks ago I decided that if I will not try him now, I should just cross him out of my under the radar authors list and be done with it. And so I cracked Oliver Twist open.

Oliver Twist was a serialized novel, first published monthly over period of time of two years. Dickens never planned his novels, so when the first part was published already, he had no idea how he will end it. He began Oliver Twist as a social satire; and even though I generally love satire endlessly, Dickens sardonic language was annoying me a great deal. It seemed to me farfetched, forced and somehow cartoonish.

However, as Dickens plans changed with Oliver Twist, so did his language. Closer to the middle of the novel, Dickens started to get attached to Oliver’s character. The story of Oliver Twist became personal for him, as he lived through something similar as a boy. At this point sarcastic language started to fade away and my affection started to grow. By the end of the novel, I admitted that my impression that Dickens resembled Dostoyevsky was completely incorrect.

If Dickens would have planned his novels he should have started Oliver Twist with something like “once upon a time in the land far far away”, because he certainly finished it in a manner of “and they lived happily ever after.” I do like a fairy tales sort of endings. However, in case of Oliver Twist the difference between the beginning and the end is so striking that such ending is utterly out of place. Nevertheless, I don’t consider it to be a Dickens’ fault, I rather think of it as a problem of Victorian tradition to serialize novels.

Overall, I enjoyed Oliver Twist. And to these of you, who have ever started it but couldn’t finish (I know there are lot of people like this), I advise to try sticking with the book until about the middle and I’m sure you will see this novel completely different after that.

Fantômas by Pierre Souvestre and Marcel Allain - Book Review #127

Fantômas

by Pierre Souvestre and Marcel Allain

“One episode simply melts away as the next takes over”(The New York Times) in this deliciously sinister turn-of-the-century tale of a French evil genius run rampant. Three appalling crimes leave all of Paris aghast: the Marquise de Langruen is hacked to death, the Princess Sonia is robbed, and Lord Beltham is found dead, stuffed into a trunk. Inspector Juve knows that all the clues point to one suspect: the master of disguise, Fantômas. Juve cleverly pursues him in speeding trains, down dark alleys, through glittering Parisian salons, obsessed with bringing the demon mastermind to justice.
From goodreads.com

Until recently I had no idea that one of my childhood beloved movie trilogy Fantômas was based on once widely popular book series by Pierre Souvestre and Marcel Allain with alarming number of installments – forty three. After finding it out I could not resist to check out at least the first installment – Fantômas.

I didn’t know much about book series, so I started reading it with impressions from movie trilogy: a light-headed, vaudeville-like story with clumsy, rushed inspector Juve, portrait by Louis de Funès and green-faced comical-like villain Fantômas, played by Jean Marais. And even though in the book inspector Juve turned out to be a smart and pedantic; and Fantômas felt not at all like a make-believe villain; I could not stop giggling and see the great Louis de Funès in Juve and equally great Jean Marais as Fantômas. So I didn’t really get to experience Fantômas as a serious crime fiction as it was meant to be.

It appears to me that Fantômas wasn’t meant to be a mystery, because the identity of Fantômas is easily recognizable at almost the very beginning of the story. Notwithstanding, it didn’t make the story less thrilling or interesting. It was still quite amusing to follow Fantômas’ crimes, notice his mistakes and imperfections that helped inspector Juve in his investigations. It was also quite engaging to follow inspector Juve’s line of inference.

Fantômas is probably one of the greatest French villains created in the twenties century. He is a master of disguise. He is ruthless, smart, with no moral code. He will not stop at anything, neither spare anyone to get what he is after. He uses the latest technology available at the beginning of the twenties century to aid in his crimes. He signal handedly put the police all around France in despair to solve the crimes he committed. He is unbeatable. Or is he really?

I will return to this series with great delight some times in the future, even though, I feel it is going to be quite a challenge to be able to get my hands on all the books from this series. Unfortunately, once widely popular, this series nowadays are hardly known to anyone.

Booking Through Thursday #3

Booking Through Thursday asks:

Do you cheat and peek at the ends of books? (Come on, be honest.)

Ok, I will be honest. I used to do that all the time when I was a child. I used to read first chapter, than the last one and after that everything in between and not necessary in chronological order.  

However, in a while I understood that the knowledge by itself that John is a killer, that Mary and Tom are together, that Jessica survived and Janet didn’t make it, that some safely returned home and some didn’t is not satisfactory to me. I don’t only want to know that John was a killer, I want to know how and why he killed, I want to know his motives and his thoughts, so basically I want to read the whole book and I want to know the whole story.  

In a while, I understood that I’m robbing myself of the story and I’m not getting any gratification in the information received. So I stopped and I now I never peek at the ends of books. Yes, I have to admit that sometimes I’m tempted. However, I’m stopping myself, promising much greater satisfaction when I read the end at the end, as it was meant to be. And honestly, this is always the case for me.

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley - Book Review #126

Brave New World

by Aldous Huxley

"Community, Identity, Stability" is the motto of Aldous Huxley's utopian World State. Here everyone consumes daily grams of soma, to fight depression, babies are born in laboratories, and the most popular form of entertainment is a "Feelie," a movie that stimulates the senses of sight, hearing, and touch. Though there is no violence and everyone is provided for, Bernard Marx feels something is missing and senses his relationship with a young woman has the potential to be much more than the confines of their existence allow.
From goodreads.com

I started to read Brave New World with huge prejudice. After I read We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, I read a lot of different things on the subject. One of these things was about the influence of We on 1984 by George Orwell; and how George Orwell suggested that We also influenced Brave New World by Aldous Huxley; and how Aldous Huxley denied it. It isn’t actually important if any of these things are true or not. It doesn’t actually matter if We had anything to do with Brave New World or not. Thousands of literally works were influenced by Shakespeare’s plays and it doesn’t make these works either bad or good by default. However, even understanding all of that, I still couldn’t get out of it and started to read Brave New World with huge prejudice and not a positive one. I’m not sure how much of this prejudice got into way of shaping my opinion on Brave New World. But hey, none of us can ever be completely objective; all of us have past and our own package that determines our way of thinking, our opinions and our decisions.

So with this explanatory preface, I’m coming out in the open finally: I did not like Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. I know that almost like all the western world is totally and completely in love with this book. Unfortunately, I’m not one of these followers. I don’t even want to try to determine the cause of this dislike; I will only list what I didn’t like.

I pretty much didn’t like the whole book: it was boring, uneventful and awkwardly structured. I didn’t care for or liked any of characters with exception of Mustapha Mond - Resident World Controller of Western Europe. He was the only character worth mentioning, in my opinion. I didn’t find anything new or original in Brave New World; not ideas, not even a new perspective on old ideas. Maybe it is because this book itself became a classics and cliché for its greatness and now, eighty years after its first publication, nothing is new in it, because everything from it was reused and not once. However, even then, at the time of its first publication, it still wasn’t the first to present ideas in the way it did. Nevertheless, this is not important, because I promised not to analyze why I didn’t like one thing or another about this book. I also wasn’t very impressed with Aldous Huxley’s writing style: it was dry and uninvolved, with the small exception of conversation between the John the Savage and Mustapha Mond at the end.

I will stop at this point, bashing everyone’s favorite book to preserve my dignity and spare other people’s feelings. I’m not recommending this book for two very obvious, from my review, reasons: first, everyone is already reading and loving it; and the second, I didn’t like it, so why would I recommend it? From where I stand, We by Yevgeny Zamyatin deserve much more attention.

Mansfield Park by Jane Austen - Book Review #125

Mansfield Park

by Jane Austen

Taken from the poverty of her parents' home, Fanny Price is brought up with her rich cousins at Mansfield Park, acutely aware of her humble rank and with only her cousin Edmund as an ally. When Fanny's uncle is absent in Antigua, Mary Crawford and her brother Henry arrive in the neighborhood, bringing with them London glamour and a reckless taste for flirtation. As her female cousins vie for Henry's attention, and even Edmund falls for Mary's dazzling charms, only Fanny remains doubtful about the Crawford's influence and finds herself more isolated than ever. A subtle examination of social position and moral integrity, Mansfield Park is one of Jane Austen's most profound works.
From goodreads.com

Mansfield Park is my third Jane Austen, after Sense and Sensibility and Pride and Prejudice; and I still have quite unsettled opinion on her works. My opinion varies on her books from love to hate and everything in between depending on time of the day, my mood and whatever particular scene from any of these three books I’m thinking about.

I heard that many people particularly dislike and consider Mansfield Park one of the worst Jane Austen’s books. As far as I understood, this negative opinion mostly formed on disfavor towards main character – Fanny Price. I would have to disagree with that opinion. I could probably see why Fanny is a character that most of the people wouldn’t like. Most of the reviewers call her boring. I could see where this is coming from. Fanny is not your regular lovable, strong rebellion that openly fights against something she disagrees with. She is not the character that trying to break old conservatives, senseless regulations. She is shy, tranquil and timid. She settles with her situation; she settles with bulling from her aunt and most of her cousins. However, in this settlement for conservative and “boring” way of living, if you like, Fanny actually fights against open frivolities of her cousins and Crawfords. Fanny is definitely not a part of glamorous, corrupt and “fun or interesting”, if you like, society. Her shyness, weakness and the fact that she finally made to oppose the society she disagrees with, make her even more interesting and courageous character. This small, mousy looking, unimportant girl is ready to go against her family, her benefactors, risk everything she have, because she knows she is right, because she is the only one who wasn’t blinded by glitter of corruption. So despite the popular opinion, I really did like Fanny as a character.

We have all been more or less to blame ... every one of us, excepting Fanny

I like Jane Austen stories. I like her characters. I like her wit. Her writing style is something that I’m not a big fan of. I understand that Austen didn’t have many examples to work with and her Sense and Sensibility novel considered by some as the first English modern novel. However, still, even considering all above, I cannot love Austen prose. It seems somehow very isolated and reductive. There is no influence on the story from outside. It seems to be closed in one manor that has no connections with outside world’s politics or economics. Austin’s works are not something that can be called atmospheric. There are also not many descriptions of characters, settings or attires. The scenes from middle section in Mansfield Park were dragging and unnecessary starched out. At the same time, the ending was rushed and crumpled.

Overall, I would say that I liked Mansfield Park more than I disliked it. As it seems to be a case for Austen’s works, it was a nice story with the happy ending, where everyone gets precisely what they deserve.

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess - Book Review #124

A Clockwork Orange

by Anthony Burgess

A vicious fifteen-year-old "droog" is the central character of this 1963 classic, whose stark terror was captured in Stanley Kubrick's magnificent film of the same title. In Anthony Burgess's nightmare vision of the future, where criminals take over after dark, the story is told by the central character, Alex, who talks in a brutal invented slang that brilliantly renders his and his friends' social pathology. A Clockwork Orange is a frightening fable about good and evil, and the meaning of human freedom. When the state undertakes to reform Alex—to "redeem" him—the novel asks, "At what cost?" This edition includes the controversial last chapter not published in the first edition and Burgess's introduction "A Clockwork Orange Resucked."
From goodreads.com

My way towards A Clockwork Orange was quite a journey by itself. I knew about this book and wanted to read it for years; and I wanted to read it in its original language – English, because I prefer to read books without translations, if possible. However there were two obstacles that were stopping me: first, I kept hearing about some intense slang; and second, English isn’t my first language. So I kept thinking that if even native speakers find A Clockwork Orange a difficult book to read, how impossible it would be for me. And I kept postponing this book, till the time I would feel that I know English good enough to try reading it, until recently.

My thoughts once more came back to A Clockwork Orange and I started to read a bit more attentively about it. And what did I read in the synopsis itself on goodreads.com? – “Alex, who talks in a brutal invented slang” Invented! This one word gave me a hope. If the slang used in A Clockwork Orange is invented, than I’m at the same position as native speakers. If that slang is invented than no one actually knows it, except these who read the book and the inventor himself – Anthony Burgess. To settle on my decision to finally read it, I went on and skim through some reviews and found out a very good advice – to look up A Clockwork Orange glossary, print it and have it alongside while reading the book. I followed the advice an upon opening the glossary I went on reading the first column only, not paying any attention to the second and the third. On the second word I got a feeling of something familiar, but didn’t pay any attention to that. After fourth and fifth word I stopped reading and stared on the list, my eyes slid to the second column and my suspicion got proofed; my eyes slid to the third column of the glossary and everything finally became clear – the third column said: “origins: Russian”. I looked though the third column and 99% on the “invented” language had Russian origins. Yes, it was spelled using Latin alphabet; yes, it was shorten sometimes the way Russians would never shorten it; yes, it was broken, but nevertheless it was Russian. “Invented slang!” I thought and laughed. “Invented language!” I kept laughing. “Anthony Burgess created the whole new language to write this book! And I’ve been putting away this book because of this ”invented” language that I happens to be native speaker of! ” And after that without any hesitation I cracked the cover of A Clockwork Orange open.

My way through A Clockwork Orange turned out to be quite a journey as well. Even though now I was convinced that I know both English and the invented slang, I never realized how still confusing it would be to read a book written on two languages simultaneously, when these two languages are mixed up in the same sentence. However, after initial ten – twenty pages I almost got used even to this.

Despite all linguistic difficulties, I enjoyed A Clockwork Orange very mush. Anthony Burgess managed to create one of the rare and paradoxical main characters that regardless of being an anti-hero still utterly lovable. Not being very wordy, Anthony Burgess pulled off fully fleshed, believable characters and perceptive world.

The ideas Anthony Burgess explored in A Clockwork Orange of freedom, importance of free will, good and evil, what becomes to the person when evil can no longer be part oneself, still ring true and still can be considered as unresolved, open questions. Burgess arguments his point of view very clearly and earnestly; and I do agree with his point of view

I read the edition that contained the last, “controversial”, as it called in the synopsis, chapter. Honestly, I didn’t find anything controversial in the chapter itself. The only controversy I see that it was never printed in the US. I also read Burgess's introduction and I completely agree with him that without the last chapter the story would be no longer a novel, but a fable. It would not contain the growth and development of the character, not to mention, it would leave some plot lines hang in the air (Pete’s story). I would not discuss here why US publisher decided to leave the last chapter out. I would not discuss if it was a good idea or not. I will just say: “I viddyed the whole veshch and that was horrorshow, my droogs.”

I would recommend this book to each and every person. A Clockwork Orange is a true classic that everyone should read. So...

"What's it going to be then, eh?"

Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoyevsky - Book Review #123

Notes from Underground

by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

A predecessor to such monumental works such as Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, Notes From Underground represents a turning point in Dostoyevsky's writing towards the more political side. In this work we follow the unnamed narrator of the story, who disillusioned by the oppression and corruption of the society in which he lives withdraws from that society into the underground. A dark and politically charged novel, Notes From Underground shows Dostoyevsky at his best.
From goodreads.com

Notes from Underground is a very short, but a very attention demanding book. If you just skim it, you will be left with nothing. However, if you give it a time and try to digest it properly, thinking it through, you will be left with hundred of very important questions (Dostoyevsky will not give you any answers) and a horrible recognition of yourself in the main character. I believe that everyone can find something or probably everything to relate to the Underground man, though not everyone would admit it even to themselves.

Every man has some reminiscences which he would not tell to everyone, but only to his friends. He has others which he would not reveal even to his friends, but only to himself, and that in secret. But finally there are still others which a man is even afraid to tell himself, and every decent man has a considerable number of such things stored away.
That is, one can even say that the more decent he is, the greater the number of such things in his mind.

I guess I’m only able to admit it here, under the disguise of the digital world. Though, if I’m admitting it, am I already not like the main character? Questions.

Questions… Does emotional stability more important than level of IQ? If the Underground man wouldn’t be in such poverty, would it give him a piece of mind? Would he have a better chance of emotional peace in the twenty first century in civilized country with Prozac and shrink’s help available?

Dostoyevsky drew a full, realistic picture of a Superfluous Man. How many are there people like that? Aren’t we all feel or actually are sometimes Superfluous Men? Questions.

Questions… And one of the most important questions is – should we even bother to ask these questions to ourselves? Because as Fyodor Mikhaylovich Dostoyevsky said:

What's better – cheap happiness or lofty suffering? Well, tell me – which of the two is better?