Top Ten Rebels in Literature - Top Ten Tuesday #2

Top Ten Tuesday is an original feature/weekly meme created at The Broke and the Bookish.

Top Ten Rebels in Literature (characters or authors) in no particular order:

• Romeo and Juliet from “Romeo and Juliet” by William Shakespeare were probably the fist lovers in the history of literature to rebel against their family and to follow their hearts.

• John Galt from “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand the character who led a revolt against leaches, people who do not create anything and what to live off creators such as John Galt himself, shaming them in the process

• Bilbo Baggins from “The Hobbit or There and Back Again” by J.R.R. Tolkien was the first hobbit ever to go on adventure, a rebel against the tradition of his people.

• D-503 from “We” by Yevgeny Zamyatin involuntary rebel that quite accidently “have developed a soul.”

• Lisbeth Salander from “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” by Stieg Larsson, the girl that shaked the whole Sweden, their bureaucrats and SAPO, fighting for her freedom and a chance to be herself.

• The Narrator from “Fight Club” by Chuck Palahniuk was a rebel against a desolate consumer society.

• Planet Pyrrus from “Deathworld” by Harry Harrison, the planet that revolts against its colonists.

• Peter Pan from “Peter Pan” by J.M. Barrie, the boy who refuse to grow up, a rebel against human nature.

• Holden Caulfield from “The Catcher in the Rye” by J. D. Salinger, a typical at least to me, but so carefully drawn by Salinger teen rebel against whole adult society.

• Betty Friedan with her “The Feminine Mystique” a rebel for the freedom of the half of human population. The person who described “the problem that has no name.” And a author of one of the most influential nonfiction books that started the second-wave feminism in the United States.

Top Ten Jerks in Literature - Top Ten Tuesday #1

Top Ten Tuesday is an original feature/weekly meme created at The Broke and the Bookish.

Top Ten Jerks in Literature.

1. Pretty much every male character in “On the Road” by Jack Kerouac. I expressed my views in the review and have nothing more to add to that.

2. Who isn’t a jerk, crazy or bastard in “Wuthering Heights” by Emily Brontë? I personally couldn’t find anyone.

3. The whole Gregor Samsa’s family in “The Metamorphosis” by Franz Kafka. I still remember my disgust how this so-called family treated Gregor.

4. Pretty much every god and goddess in “The Iliad” by Homer. The games they play and the wars they fight against each other (and for what reason? Who is the prettiest?), using all these innocent people, are disgusting. I just want to smack and shake them, yelling: “For crying out loud, you are gods and goddesses, so act appropriate to your position.” Or maybe they already act the way they supposed to…?

5. Baron Danglars, Fernand Mondego, Caderousse, Gerard de Villefort in “The Count of Monte Cristo” by Alexandre Dumas. I think I don’t have to explain anything about this group. What they’ve done and for what reasons… unforgivable and so Edmond Dantès thought.

6. Miles Gentry in “The Door into the Summer” by Robert A. Heinlein. The way he treated Dan Davis, his long time friend and for what reason, definitely deserves a jerk award.

7. Tom Fennel in “Theatre” by W. Somerset Maugham. The way he treated Julia… I’m only glad how he got played and that he got what he deserved at the end.

8. Philip Rearden in “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand.There are a lot of jerks in this book, but for some reason Philip bothers me the most. The way he treats Hank Rearden after what Hank is doing for Philip has a jerk written all over himself.

9. Henry Higgins in “Pygmalion” by George Bernard Shaw. I still can’t believe that in movie adaptation “My Fair Lady” Eliza Doolittle stays with Henry Higgins, because he is your classical jerk.

10. Eugene Onegin in “Eugene Onegin” by Alexander Pushkin. Even though by the end of the story he changes, it has no cancelation on how he was acting before.


The Cement Garden by Ian McEwan - Book Review #131

The Cement Garden
by Ian McEwan

In this tour de force of psychological unease--now a major motion picture starring Charlotte Gainsbourg and Sinead Cusack--McEwan excavates the ruins of childhood and uncovers uncovers things that most adults have spent a lifetime forgetting--or denying."Possesses the suspense and chilling impact of Lord of the Flies."-- Washington Post Book World.

From goodreads.com

The Cement Garden is a tiny novella that was advertised to me as the book that will rock my world. I have to report that, unfortunately, it didn’t.

The idea of what would happen if you leave children alone without any adult supervision, isn’t new and wasn’t a novelty neither in 1978, when it first was published. As synopsis mentions, one of the most notorious books on this theme is Lord of the Flies, which, in my opinion, gives a much more powerful and sweeping study of this issue.

Another reason why The Cement Garden didn’t make a big impression on me, probably, is the style of Ian McEwan writing. He doesn’t make the subject matter sounds controversial, disgusting or revelatory. He tells it in the matter of fact tone, leaving nothing behind the scene, neither making a bigger deal of something that doesn’t deserve it. This doesn’t sound like a worse approach to the novel writing and probably at some other time I would confess that I prefer this style. However, it didn’t work for me in case of The Cement Garden. My best guess is, the reason it happened, because I accepted this universe, presented to me by McEwan as a normal, usual for these characters and when a character is in his conventional environment, I have no feeling neither towards him, no to his situation. It is when character is leaving his conventional atmosphere, the reader starting root for him, getting worried about him or shocked by his actions and decisions. And McEwan writing style made it for me as The Cement Garden characters never left their conventional environment.

I would recommend this book for people who like reading something that created a big turmoil in the society because of its theme, because as far as I heard, The Cement Garden certainly did this. For all you others, interested in the idea, but not reading something only because the size of the scandal it created, I recommend Lord of the Flies – read it, love it, same as I did.

What kind of book are you?

You Are a Hardcover Book

When it comes to reading, you tend to stick to old and modern classics. You are picky about what you read. You probably anticipate certain books' releases, and you snatch them up the moment they're available. You have been building a library of books that mean a lot to you. You carefully consider every book before deciding to add it to your collection. You believe that if a book is worth reading, it's worth paying more to have it in hardcover.

Are You a Hardcover Book or a Paperback Book?

You Are Fantasy / Sci Fi

You have an amazing imagination, and in your mind, all things are possible. You are open minded, and you find the future exciting. You crave novelty and progress. Compared to most people, you are quirky and even a bit eccentric. You have some wacky ideas. And while you may be a bit off the wall, there's no denying how insightful and creative you are.

What Kind of Book Are You?

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë - Book Review #130

Jane Eyre

by Charlotte Brontë

Orphaned into the household of her Aunt Reed at Gateshead, subject to the cruel regime at Lowood charity school, Jane Eyre nonetheless emerges unbroken in spirit and integrity. She takes up the post of governess at Thornfield, falls in love with Mr. Rochester, and discovers the impediment to their lawful marriage in a story that transcends melodrama to portray a woman's passionate search for a wider and richer life than Victorian society traditionally allowed. With a heroine full of yearning, the dangerous secrets she encounters, and the choices she finally makes, Charlotte Bronte's innovative and enduring romantic novel continues to engage and provoke readers.
From goodreads.com

Jane Eyre isn’t just a classic; it is the book that inspired other classics, such as Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier and Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys. It also inspired many other authors. William Makepeace Thackeray called it "the masterwork of great genius." Jane Eyre is proclaimed by thousands of readers the all time favorite. It is not just British classics. It is not only known to the western world. It is internationally famous.

I knew all these praises before I started reading Jane Eyre and regardless, I was certain I will hate it. Why? Oh, just a silly reason: my experience with no less praised and called the most romantic book ever, by Charlotte Brontë’s sister Emily Brontë - Wuthering Heights. Yes, I know that to judge a book of one family member by the book of another doesn’t make much sense, that’s why I called a silly reason.

I vaguely remembered the story of Jane Eyre from a movie adaptation that I saw some years ago, when I still was a child. The bits and pieces I remembered from the movie plus my prejudice against Brontë sisters combined in my head into something ugly. So imagine my surprise, when after initial fifty pages I was finally able to unclench my fingers of the book and realized that I’m actually loving it. I waited for the moment when I will start hating Jane Eyre through the entire book, but it never came. I loved it from the start to finish.

Don’t get me wrong, Jane Eyre isn’t by far my favorite character, no I always agreed with her decisions. However, everything she did, everything she felt, or was afraid of was very characteristic to her and completely logical. Her actions and feelings fitted her perfectly and even if I disagree with something, I understood her.

What I really liked about Jane Eyre as a book, was the writing style. It was uncommon for Victorian book to have a first-person viewpoint narrative. Charlotte Brontë choice of this point of view made the story of Jane Eyre sounds very personal. Through the entire book I had a feeling that I was reading someone’s diary. And even though this someone is long gone, I had a feeling I was reading this diary without permission, so to the curiosity the obscure feeling of guilt was added that made reading process even more interesting and exciting. Not all first-person viewpoint novel create such emotions in me, so I’m guessing, there should be something more to it, which, unfortunately, I can’t pin-point.

Verdict: it is a rare event, as my husband told me, but this time, I’m in agreement with the majority: Jane Eyre is a great book and I advise it to everyone who never read it.

Vanity Fair by William Makepeace Thackeray - Book Review #129

Vanity Fair

by William Makepeace Thackeray

Vanity Fair is a story of two heroines—one humble, the other a scheming social climber—who meet in boarding school and embark on markedly different lives. Amid the swirl of London's posh ballrooms and affairs of love and war, their fortunes rise and fall. Through it all, Thackeray lampoons the shallow values of his society, reserving the most pointed barbs for the upper crust. What results is a prescient look at the dogged pursuit of wealth and status—and the need for humility.
From goodreads.com

Long before television, long before TV sets, even long before electrification there was love and demand for soap operas; and so they existed. They existed in the form of serialized novels that were published in parts every month. Authors were paid by the word and in many cases didn’t know how or when they will finish a story. Vanity Fair, in my opinion, is a good example of such Victorian soap opera. At least the feeling of soap opera didn’t leave me for a moment while I was reading it.

It took me two weeks to read the first half of Vanity Fair and after that, three months to convince myself to finish it. Like a classic soap operas it had a lot of repetitions, not direct, but in a form of variations. Also, like soap operas it had too much of air time (words, pages) for not too much story. Vanity Fair is too wordy and not for its own good. In my opinion, the plot of the book can be easily fit into tree hundred pages and Thackeray wrote nine hundred.

However, there were some things that I liked about Vanity Fair. Becky Sharp was one of these. She was certainly a refreshing and unusual heroine (or should I say anti-heroine) for a Victorian novel. She distantly reminded me of Scarlett O’Hara. Same as Scarlett, Becky was ready for anything to get what she wanted. Such determination combined with smartness, never leaves me insensitive. There were some really funny moments in Vanity Fair, which was another thing I liked about it. One of the funny moments is when old Sir Pitt Crawley proposes to Becky, however she has to decline, because she is already secretly married to his younger son - Rawdon Crawley and how Becky regrets it, because if she would marry Sir Pitt Crawley she would have became a wife of baronet. It was also very funny how at the end Becky uses her son, that she never cared about to get to Amelia Sedley. And there were some other funny moments… However, I will stop at this, because it is not my intention to retell the whole Vanity Fair in here.

Unfortunately, despite the things that I liked about Vanity Fair, there was one thought that I kept coming back to while reading: “What a drag and when is it going to end?” I am usually not bored by novels written a century, two or more ago. I do not require action to be entertained. However, the lack of action and bunch of unnecessary information are two different things and Vanity Fair was full of the latest. I guess I’m one of the people that do not like neither televisionalized not novelized soap operas.

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.