The Cat's Table

Michael Ondaatje is a master writer. His prose is so lyrical, it flows, it wraps around your imagination. I wasn't sure what I was going to make of The Cat's Table. The premise seemed simple enough, but simple things did not happen on the ship, Oronsay, as it traveled from Sri Lanka to England. There were so many twists and turns, paths not to be taken, and ones all too alluring.

The Cat's Table is primarily told from the perspective of Michael (nicknamed Mynah), on his journey to be reunited with his mother in England. The story feels so real as it's being told. Michael grows up to be an author, which is the last piece of information that makes you wonder if the tale is actually autobiographical. Much of what happens to the main character feels real. The people he meets feel real. It has a "life story" sensibility. You could be told this tale is a memoir and you would believe it. It is so believable, that Ondaatje includes a note at the end of the story telling the reader that the story is fictional. He did not take a trip on a boat called the Oronsay. Apparently, there were many boats with that name travelling from Sri Lanka to England during that time.

By the end of the novel, my heart had begun to reach out to Emily. I was so happy that she and Michael reconnected. I was glad that they figured out the truth of what happened to the CID agent. I loved all the characters. Cassius and Ramadhin felt like really people. They felt like they could have been life-long friends. I immensely enjoyed Mr. Daniels and Miss Lasqueti. Miss Lasqueti's story was an interesting one, folded into Michael's. Having finished the book, it really is difficult not to see these characters as real. They felt real. Ondaatje created people going on a journey, not just physical, but within themselves as well. I want to know what happened to all of them. How did they live their lives? Were they happy? Also, was Mynah ever Ondaatje's nickname? He took a trip like this when he was young. What interesting characters were on the boat with him? The Cat's Table still has me thinking. A beautiful read, The Cat's Table shows off Ondaatje at his lyrical best.

A Study In Scarlet

After reading A Study In Scarlet, I can see why so many people have fallen for Sherlock Holmes over the years. He's an ass, but clever. He is charming to Watson, but the Scotland Yard Detectives dislike him, yet are constantly needing him. They want to be better than him, because he's the best. Even thought they use his skills, they take credit for his work. No wonder he gets so jaded! Holmes is funny, serious, intelligent and irreverent. He's an amazing character.

In this first case, Arthur Conan Doyle keeps the plot seemingly simple. We get to know Watson, as the story is told initially from his perspective. We discover Holmes as Watson does. I can imagine that when Doyle first wrote this story, people would wonder who this man was, with his strange behaviour. Now, we learn about Sherlock Holmes as we grow up and his being an investigator is not a surprise. I read A Study In Scarlet waiting for Holmes' attitude. At the beginning of the story, Watson and Holmes have not yet met. After they do, Watson is fascinated by Holmes' studies, peculiarities and personality. They are just discovering each other. They are not the partners we are used to seeing.

Another unexpected part of the tale was the back story of the crime. Though Holmes uses his deductive reasoning and skills to discover the killer, Doyle delves into the motive. He gives us the tale of a family, who was from the state of Utah in America, and all the events that led to the murder in England. It is sad, emotional, and creates sympathy in the reader. I wonder how many, or if all of Sherlock Holmes' tales will have this element. It is a short novel (novella), so I can't really say too much more. Though we know Sherlock Holmes, A Study In Scarlet was not a tale I was familiar with and it was interesting discovering Holmes and the secrets of the mystery.

A Study In Scarlet was also my Spin book. I'm always happy to participate in the Classics Club's Spins. They remind me to read those classics that have been sitting on my shelf for too long. I wonder what other classics were read for today.

After all the fun of A Study In Scarlet, and getting a taste of Doyle's writing, I am looking forward to reading more Sherlock Holmes.

The Satanic Verses

Wow. So, The Satanic Verses is a long, long book. It is not an easy read, especially the first half. By about the last third, I felt like the story picked up more and I was actually interested in finishing it. By the final third, all the twisting, complex storylines were being brought to completion. Some of the subplots I thought were interesting, but didn't need to go into such detail. My main interest was in what happened to the main characters, Gibreel Farishta and Saladin Chamcha. They fell, unharmed, from the sky. Why? What would they do with this gift of life? Though it wasn't easy, it was worth reading.

Should I address the controversy first? I always wondered what Salman Rushdie could have written that would have so incensed the leader of Iran to issue a fatwa calling for his death. Was the book blasphemous? Maybe. Was it making fun of Islam? After reading it, no, I don't think so. I think it was giving a different perspective or using certain events and the life of Prophet Mohammed (uwbp) to inspire a story, reflecting on the feelings of immigration and displacement. Also, within the context of the story, this is Gibreel's dream. In his dreams, he is the angel, watching the Prophet in these sequences. I don't think Rushdie was saying anything of what he wrote actually happened. Gibreel's mental state created this dream. I've read that Rushdie was surprised by this reaction. He thought some people might be angry, but he didn't think there would be so much violence surrounding it. Who would think their novel would create such vitriol? The amount of controversy it stirred, the bannings in so many countries, the burnings, of course this was something I would want to read. I could go deeper into the fatwa and whether it was actually used properly, the refutations by Islamic scholars, Human Rights violations, but I don't think that's necessary here. What I want to talk about is the story, the plot and the characters.

The entire novel had a dream-like quality to it. So much of what happens to Gibreel seems like a dream or vision. Saladin's experiences seem rooted in horror. Unlike Gibreel, Saladin has rejected his past, his roots. He has tried extremely hard to acclimate to his new country. He loves London and wants to be a Londoner. He wants to leave his youth behind. This is the opposite of Gibreel, who is a big part of Bollywood and life in India, though he too leaves, but he leaves for love. He meets Allie and she changes his whole world. There are a lot of things that change Gibreel, besides the fall. He's very reactionary, listening to others' voices instead of relying on his own, even though he dreams that he is the voice that speaks to the Prophet. Saladin goes through a lot of changes too, though many of his are physical. Is Saladin's ordeal reflective of what he goes through as an immigrant in a land that does not necessarily respect him? What about the people he meets who are like him? Are they also displaced migrants? There is so much beyond controversy in this novel. There are stories, allegories, emotion upheavals, mental breakdowns, and strange changes.

I don't think I can explain the complexities of this novel. There was a lot happening. There were a couple of times where I considered quitting, but I just had to know what happened. Like so many novels, it was the characters that kept me going. I wanted to know if Gibreel and Saladin would come together again and what the consequences of that would be. I wanted to know if Gibreel and Allie would stay together. I wanted to know what choices Saladin would end up making. Besides the main characters, I also wanted to know about Mishal, Baal, and Ayesha. I wanted to know about Saladin's father, Nasreen II, and Zeeny. So, maybe I took a couple breaks here and there, but knew I had to finish it. Of all the characters, Saladin's journey was the one that had me the most unsure. I didn't know if in the end I was going to like his character. A lot of bad things happened to him, but he did bad things too. I wasn't sure if I was going to like him in the end. I am still not sure if I like him, I just know he was a character I couldn't turn away from.

After all the ups and downs, and not knowing how it was all going to turn out, I liked The Satanic Verses. I don't think it's for everyone, definitely not a casual read, but it was worth every minute I spent with it.

The Humans

I loved The Humans. I really loved it. The unnamed alien narrator was brilliant. I thought every bit of his comments about life on Earth were spot on and hilarious. Some observations from the narrator (who is Andrew, but not really Andrew), are just funny: "unfathomably pointless eyebrows"; but also true: "The manners and social customs too are a baffling enigma at first. Their conversation topics are very rarely the things they want to be talking about." Matt Haig created a compelling, interesting, complex character, who has to deal with our complex world.

Many of the quotes really hit me, especially in the currently global and political state. Or societal state. Or feminism: "I could write ninety-seven books on body shame and clothing etiquette before you would get even close to understanding them."

Matt Haig wrote The Humans from the perspective of an alien visitor, who has taken on human form, and is trying to fit in, though he also has a pretty awful mission. In his trying to fulfill his mission, we the see the world from the outside, in. I wonder if The Humans might contain everything that has ever made Haig frustrated about life in our world.

"Oh, and let’s not forget The Things They Do To Make Themselves Happy That Actually Make Them Miserable. This is an infinite list. It includes – shopping, watching TV, taking the better job, getting the bigger house, writing a semi-autobiographical novel, educating their young, making their skin look mildly less old, and harbouring a vague desire to believe there might be a meaning to it all."

There are just so many quotes. I have not highlighted so much from a novel since University (not that I highlighted the actual novel). Most of these are from the beginning of the novel when the alien is trying to figure out human life.  With the idea that they are being said by an alien impersonating a human, they are just so insightful. They are blunt and honest. It is the main character's honesty and innocence (ignorance?) that had me from the beginning. I also couldn't help but think, this super advanced civilization sending an alien to live among us, they couldn't have coached him better? Or given him clothes? The beginning would have been less funny, though.

The journey that not-Andrew goes through though, is just amazing. He knows nothing, but also everything. He learns so much, he moves beyond the numbers. Not-Andrew is amazed with what he is capable of. The Humans is really one of the best books I've read this year (so far). It's funny, but layered with emotion. I really didn't know what was going to happen at the end.

So here are way more quotes than I think I've ever included in a post before, but I just love them. I also tried not to include anything spoilery.

"Once there, I had several immediate reactions. First, what was with the weather? I was not really used to weather you had to think about. But this was England, a part of Earth where thinking about the weather was the chief human activity."

(I'm sure the English really appreciated this one. Also, weather is also a hot topic in Canada.)

"This was, I would later realise, a planet of things wrapped inside things. Food inside wrappers. Bodies inside clothes. Contempt inside smiles."

"Understandably, a human needs to know what kind of book they are about to read. They need to know if it is a love story. Or a murder story. Or a story about aliens. There are other questions, too, that humans have in bookstores. Such as, is it one of those books they read to feel clever, or one of those they will pretend never to have read in order to stay looking clever? Will it make them laugh, or cry? Or will it simply force them to stare out of the window watching the tracks of raindrops? Is it a true story? Or is it a false one? Is it the kind of story that will work on their brain or one which aims for lower organs? Is it one of those books that ends up acquiring religious followers or getting burned by them? Is it a book about mathematics or – like everything else in the universe – simply because of it?"

"Yes, there are lots of questions. And even more books. So, so many. Humans in their typical human way have written far too many to get through. Reading is added to that great pile of things – work, love, sexual prowess, the words they didn’t say when they really needed to say them – that they are bound to feel a bit dissatisfied about."

(I love the quotes about books!)

"Humans, as a rule, don’t like mad people unless they are good at painting, and only then once they are dead. But the definition of mad, on Earth, seems to be very unclear and inconsistent. What is perfectly sane in one era turns out to be insane in another. The earliest humans walked around naked with no problem. Certain humans, in humid rainforests mainly, still do so. So, we must conclude that madness is sometimes a question of time, and sometimes of postcode."

"Basically, the key rule is, if you want to appear sane on Earth you have to be in the right place, wearing the right clothes, saying the right things, and only stepping on the right kind of grass."

"She came to see me in my room, while a nurse watched. It was, of course, another test. Everything in human life was a test. That was why they all looked so stressed out."

"Remember, during your mission, never to become influenced or corrupted. The humans are an arrogant species, defined by violence and greed. They have taken their home planet, the only one they currently have access to, and placed it on the road to destruction. They have created a world of divisions and categories and have continually failed to see the similarities between themselves. They have developed technology at a rate too fast for human psychology to keep up with, and yet they still pursue advancement for advancement’s sake, and for the pursuit of the money and fame they all crave so much."

"As well as religion, human history is full of depressing things like colonisation, disease, racism, sexism, homophobia, class snobbery, environmental destruction, slavery, totalitarianism, military dictatorships, inventions of things which they have no idea how to handle (the atomic bomb, the Internet, the semi-colon), the victimisation of clever people, the worshipping of idiotic people, boredom, despair, periodic collapses, and catastrophes within the psychic landscape. And through it all there has always been some truly awful food."

"Where we are from there are no comforting delusions, no religions, no impossible fiction."

"A human life is on average 80 Earth years or around 30,000 Earth days. Which means they are born, they make some friends, eat a few meals, they get married, or they don’t get married, have a child or two, or not, drink a few thousand glasses of wine, have sexual intercourse a few times, discover a lump somewhere, feel a bit of regret, wonder where all the time went, know they should have done it differently, realise they would have done it the same, and then they die. Into the great black nothing. Out of space. Out of time."

Blast from the Past #4 - Daisy Miller

I wish I had written more about Daisy Miller when I read it 10 years ago. She seems like such an interesting and multi-dimensional character. I only vaguely remember the story. I remember Winterbourne. Were there some kind of ruins? I remember his affection for Daisy. I remember Daisy being a unique person for that time. 100 years later, would Daisy's behaviour have been so shocking.?What would I think if I read the story again? I should read it again. I've enjoyed everything I've ever read by Henry James. The Turn Of The Screw is one of my favourite stories. Could Daisy Miller become a favourite too? It's not long. Will it be like when I read Appointment With Death after looking back at The ABC Murders? Don't be surprised if I read Daisy Miller again.

Also, there's a huge spoiler at the end of the post, which I didn't include in the image, because it's about the ending. Sometimes I like talking about endings, because they can be dramatic, but ten years later, I had forgotten the ending and have now spoiled it for myself. Good job, Me.

Looking at these posts from my early blogging though, I'm still wondering when I starting putting pictures in my posts. Or links. Or doing any kind of formatting at all.

About last week, part of me wants to delete it. It feels so personal... I don't know if I'm going to do another post like that for a while.

I'm still very happy I decided to do Throwback Thursdays. I am finding looking back at my old posts quite enlightening.

Little Dorrit

Did I love Little Dorrit? Yes, I think I did. Little Dorrit, by Charles Dickens, is very long. It's full of many colourful, interesting, complex characters. Once or twice, I had to use the internet to look up who someone was, since if they hadn't been mentioned for a while, I might have forgotten. Because Little Dorrit was LONG. Like really long. I thought Middlemarch was long (and it was), but Dickens was very generous with words. My one reprieve was that I could take a break. Little Dorrit is split into too "books", Poverty and Riches. So, when Poverty was done, I took a break. I read three other books, I think, in that time. I still wanted to know, longed to know, what would happen to Little Dorrit and Mr. Clennham, but I needed that break.

To stick it out for over 800 pages of Victoria Literature, the characters need to be compelling, and they were. I adored Amy Dorrit. She worked so hard to make her father happy, to give her siblings something, some meaning to their lives. They knew, but chose to pretend not to know, so much about Little Dorrit, the name she preferred for herself. Little Dorrit is just an amazing person, caring for her family and friends, loving, kind. I just rooted for her the whole time. I wanted her to be happy.

I wanted Arthur Clennham to be happy too. He seemed to long to be loved by his mother, but gave that up. He wanted to right some wrong he believed his father had done. He wanted Daniel Doyce to be a success. He wanted Little Dorrit and her family to be free. He spend time, money and emotion to better the life of the people he cared about. He thought he could be happy with Pet, but I'm kind of glad for him that it didn't work out (though not glad for her). When something terrible happened, though not his fault, he took all the consequences on himself. I was so worried about him, worrying that I might end up with sad ending, like Villette.

Because it was the characters that made the book for me, the last few chapters were the best. Dickens took the time to go back over the characters he introduced. We found out what happened to the Meagles, Merdles, Gowans and Casbys. We learn about Doyce and Pancks, and other residents of Bleeding Heart Yard. Dickens takes us on a journey of goodbyes, where he readers don't have to wonder what happened to all these people.

Though Little Dorrit was a lengthy tome, it was worth every minute. Dickens brought these places and people to life. Life at the Marshalsea, inspired by his father, was depressing, but could also have hope. Though the story didn't always take place there, the debtor's prison was the centre of this tale. How easily a man could end up there, how easily his whole family. How does a person ever get out without a stroke of luck? It was interesting how it was its own community, inside of London, how status was still maintained there. The Marshalsea seemed to have its own personality and change a person, as soon as they entered its walls. It really leaves you thinking about how far a person can fall and how far a person can climb back up.

Middlemarch

Middlemarch is a total soap opera.  There’s relationship drama and political intrigue.  It takes place during an interesting political point in history, where part of the political problems come from the “Reform Bill”. The business subversion and debt is abundant. Money and love seem to motivate everything, whether wanting or lacking. I could see Middlemarch done in 4 or 5 seasons… or one crazy mini-series.  (It has been done.)  I don’t think it could ever be a proper movie, there’s way too much going on.  So much so, that I would occasionally forget who a minor character was and have to look them up (thanks, Internet). Middlemarch was not an easy read, but it was worth it.

What kept me reading was George Eliot's brilliant characters. I loved Dorothea Brooke and Will Ladislaw, emotionally invested in the outcome of their lives. Their relationship was so natural and grew through genuine affection. The relationship was a huge contrast when compared to Lydgate and Rosamond. She frustrated me so much! I felt so sorry for Lydgate. Mr. Brooke was so doddering. I really liked Farebrother and wished I could have known how his life ended up. Bulstrode was a perfect character. For me though, it always came back to Will and Dorothea. They were my favourites, eager to find out what would happen to them. Eliot contrasted Dorothea and Rosamond quite a bit in the novel. One dark-haired and one light, but maybe the darkness represented Dorothea's depth of thought and emotion, while the light was Rosamond's feelings, her shallowness. I was excited when the two finally encountered each other.

Middlemarch takes place in the past for the narrator/Eliot, as she refers to how things were and the "Reform Bill". It's an interesting perspective on 1829-1832 from someone who is living in the 1870s. There are moments of apology for things happening 40 years earlier. I wonder what kind of social changes happened in those 4 decades for Eliot to occasionally take that tone. 

I also liked the cheeky tone that Eliot sometimes used: "Society never made the preposterous demand that a man should think as much about his own qualifications for making a charming girl happy as he thinks of hers for making himself happy. As if a man could choose not only his wife but his wife's husband! Or as if he were bound to provide charms for his posterity in his own person!— When Dorothea accepted him with effusion, that was only natural; and Mr. Casaubon believed that his happiness was going to begin." Was this something women and men had started to think about? About each other's happiness and not just it being one-sided?Were men regarding women's feelings? I think this is something Lydgate and Mr. Casaubon should have thought of. Fred Vincy seemed to consider it.

Let's talk medicine for a minute. Lydgate's professional goals were all about discovery and explanations for things. Why didn't people like that back then? Superstition? He seemed so much more advanced than the other medical men in Middlemarch. "He not only used his stethoscope (which had not become a matter of course in practice at that time), but sat quietly by his patient and watched him." Just, wow. Why wouldn't it be used all the time? From Eliot's comments, in the 1870s, stethoscopes were commonly used, but why did it take so long to catch on? People knew where their hearts were, right? Why wouldn't you want to have a better listen too it? This really caught my attention.

Though I kind of hated Mr. Casaubon, I felt sorry for him too. He just didn't get it. He didn't understand Dorothea. He didn't understand what marriage was, I think. Why did he ever decide to marry her? So he didn't have to hire an assistant? He had no faith in her, but she was so trusting with him. She never had bad intensions, but he couldn't see that. "Dorothea told him that she had seen Lydgate, and recited the gist of her conversation with him about the Hospital. Mr. Casaubon did not question her further, but he felt sure that she had wished to know what had passed between Lydgate and himself. "She knows that I know," said the ever-restless voice within; but that increase of tacit knowledge only thrust further off any confidence between them. He distrusted her affection; and what loneliness is more lonely than distrust?" It is so true, what is more lonely than distrust in a relationship? 

Will and Mr. Casaubon speak of the same woman: "I have not spoken too strongly now," said Will, leaning back against the angle of the wall. "There are certain things which a man can only go through once in his life; and he must know some time or other that the best is over with him. This experience has happened to me while I am very young—that is all. What I care more for than I can ever care for anything else is absolutely forbidden to me—I don't mean merely by being out of my reach, but forbidden me, even if it were within my reach, by my own pride and honor—by everything I respect myself for. Of course I shall go on living as a man might do who had seen heaven in a trance." One see the woman as heaven, the other with distrust. Why are their perspectives so different? Is it age? Life expreiences? General disposition? I don't know that Casuabon ever was really socialized with the world beyond his studies, where Will was all about the world. They are so very, very different.

I loved the language of the novel too. Eliot could craft a sentence, pour emotion into metaphor, "the years had been perpetually spinning them into intricate thickness, like masses of spider-web, padding the moral sensibility". Though it was a long read, with many devoted hours, phrases like that grabbed me, had me waiting for more.

I first read Middlemarch a long time ago, back in University, but honestly, I couldn't remember anything about it, except that I liked Dorothea and Will. I am so happy to have re-read it. It is definitely a novel I can see myself reading again in the future and it's one I would recommend to those who like a good story.

MacBeth

MacBeth was interesting, but not what I expected. Though, I don't know what I really expected. I had never read MacBeth before (even though I took an entire class in University on William Shakespeare). I knew about the witches, I knew they told MacBeth some stuff and because it is Shakespeare, I assumed MacBeth died at the end. You know what I didn't know? Lady MacBeth. She does some serious convincing, then she goes nuts! Can I blame her for the path MacBeth goes down a bit? Not all of it though. He goes mad with paranoia! All the those people, former friends, wives and children. The witches definitely put the idea into MacBeth's head, but it is Lady MacBeth that spurs him into action, and MacBeth has to be held accountable for falling into desperate ambition.

I'm left feeling like I did after reading Cyrano de Bergerac, I really want to see this play. I've heard that there is going to be a movie soon, with Michael Fassbender. I'm really excited for it, more than I would have been had I never read Shakespeare's play first. I really enjoy the witches' scenes. Something about their rhymes and laughs and talks with Hecate are so fascinating. I'd love to see it played out. The opening scene, one of the best I've ever read, I'd love to see it on stage or the big screen. The scenes with MacBeth and his wife, making plans, deciding to do the deeds. I also feel like I will connect more with the themes and emotion of the play, if I could see it. Though, the end, with the beheading, very dramatic no matter how that's played out on film or stage. 

Is it weird that this kind of reminded me of The Hunger Games and killing for power... though I suppose there are a lot plays, movies, novels, about killing for power...

I was supposed to be done on October 23 for the Classics Club Spin, but somehow didn't get it finished in time.

I wonder how I'll feel and what new insights I'll have after seeing the movie?

I wonder if I'll ever finish reading all of Shakespeare's plays?

Quotes:

"Fair is foul, and foul is fair:"

"Round about the cauldron go; 
In the poison'd entrails throw."

"Double, double toil and trouble; 
Fire burn, and cauldron bubble."

"Fillet of a fenny snake, 
In the cauldron boil and bake; 
Eye of newt and toe of frog, 
Wool of bat and tongue of dog, 
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting, 
Lizard's leg and owlet's wing, 
For a charm of powerful trouble, 
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble."

"By the pricking of my thumbs, 
Something wicked this way comes."

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player 
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage 
And then is heard no more: it is a tale 
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,"

Jane Austen

Recently, I read Mansfield Park, which once completed meant I had read all of Jane Austen's novels. I know there are other works I could read, but I wasn't sure if I wanted to, they are all either unfinished or Austen did not submit them for publication.  After reading Carol Shields' short biography of Austen, simply titled, Jane Austen, I'm definitely more curious about the other works. Though one of the things Shields' biography taught me was that Austen was an avid reviser, leaving manuscripts for years, then going back to them and revising, after having already made several revisions previously, before sending them for publication.

I didn't really know a lot about Jane Austen as a person when I read her novels.  I know she died relatively young, just forty.  She was unmarried, though there had been opportunity.  She became a spinster/maiden aunt by the end of her twenties - which is really ridiculous when you think of it now, but that's how things were then.  When I was shopping at a used bookstore, I came across Jane Austen, by Carol Shields.  It was a slim volume and I wondered why.  I also wanted to read more by Carol Shields.  Since I also wanted to know more about Austen, it seemed a perfect find.  Austen in August gave me the perfect time to read it.

Shields' writing is fluid and insightful.  The book is structured around Austen's writing life, as Shields tells us about what was happening in Austen's life while she was creating her various novels.  I like that Shields didn't just record everything chronologically.  I like that the focus of the book was her writing and what affected it, the inspiration behind it, as well as the frequency in which Austen wrote. It's a little sad, her early life, but once she finally had Sense and Sensibility published, she was happier.  The end was sad too.  It's interesting through her letters, accounts of her health, and the way her aunt and cousin died, people guess that Austen died of breast cancer.  At least, that's the theory that Shields ascribes to; there are others.  Austen died too soon, with works left unwritten, unfinished.  I wonder if she would have revised Persuasion* more if she had the time. Shields gives the impression of Austen racing to finish the work before the end. 

Shields includes at the end of the biography, her sources. It is a nice list of further reading. I'd like read what nephew James Edward Austen-Leigh wrote of his aunt. I've also heard that Claire Tomalin's Jane Austen, A Life is quite good. Though the real source of pleasure for me will be Jane Austen's six finished novels.  I've enjoyed all her books and look forward to re-reading them. I very much enjoyed Shields' Jane Austen.  It is an easy read and illuminating volume.

*I just read my old post on Persuasion.  It's so short!  Written in November 2006, I had only been blogging for a few months, before these wordy things I post know ;)  I definitely need to re-read Persuasion.  Also, Sense and Sensibility, which I read before I started blogging.

Mansfield Park

I am just going to assume that people have read Mansfield Park or seen one of the movies....

I am finally finished Mansfield Park. I shouldn't say "finally" like it is a bad thing. I enjoyed Mansfield Park, it just took me longer to read than other books. I was eager for the ending, because I have come to know Jane Austen and I knew in this story, it would be the unrequited love fulfilled. Though, I was eager for the ending, I loved the beginning and middle too. I found it all very interesting. How could one sister have 10 children, another have only 4 and the third have none? (I know how someone could have no children, it was more the 10 to 4 thing.) It sparked an interesting discussion with my husband. Fanny Price's mother had more children than she knew what to do with. Her sister, Lady Bertram, married much more advantageously, and offered to take one of the children. Mrs. Price assumed it would be their oldest boy, William, but instead the sister asked for the oldest girl, Fanny. Mrs. Price, who favours the boys over the girls, was surprised, but sent her off; one less mouth to feed. I think it was kind what Sir Thomas did for his wife's relations. Fanny and William are much better off for having such an uncle, who showed them this kindness, as the Bertrams did help William also. It is Mrs. Norris, the childless sister, who drove me crazy, as I think she was supposed to do. She was so awful to Fanny and I'm glad Sir Thomas finally saw her true colours.

I was really hoping for a little more build up to Fanny and Edmund. I've read the other five main Austen novels and there is always some kind of movement, moments, before we get the final couple. Not with Fanny and Edmund. Instead, it felt as though the Crawfords would get paired, as so much of the novel was spent on those relationships. Thinking back on it, maybe Austen was making sure that we knew how unsuitable these relationships would be. For a minute, I thought Fanny would soften towards Crawford, just enough so that his betrayal would hurt her more, but nope. She was a rigid heroine. I liked her though. I feel like Fanny had a real sense of who was around her and how they all really felt towards her and each other.

I hated Mary Crawford. She was so insipid. She played at friendship. I feel like I've known people like her, who don't make a choice exactly, yet spin things in their favour, but it is something in them that has thoroughly skewed their judgment and they just don't see that they are wrong. I felt a little bad for the Bertram sisters, too much ruled by emotion and not enough by rational though. Crawford was a cad, he was Wickham and Willoughby, but worse. He was an awful "flirt", though I do think he had genuine affection for Fanny. Crawford lacked patience. If he had waited, he (and his sister) might have ended up with the people they desired. I still wish that everyone, especially Edmund could have, could have seen what Fanny saw.

I know Mansfield Park is Austen's least popular and regarded as her most difficult novel (probably why it's the least popular.) It definitely lacked some of the romance and lovable, relateable characters that fill her other books, but the story, the view of English society, was fantastic.  I know I was hesitant to read Mansfield Park and it certainly took me a little while to finish it, but it was fantastic and definitely a book I will re-read one day.  

Yay for Austen in August!! - Check out Austen in August at Roof Beam Reader

Shopaholic On Honeymoon

Shopaholic on Honeymoon is a perfect little taste of the Shopaholic series.  It is full of Sophie Kinsella's humourous tone and Becky's insanely wonderful personality.  Shopaholic on Honeymoon takes place during the gap of time between Shopaholic Ties The Knot and Shopaholic and Sister. There's an entire year in there where Becky and Luke go on honeymoon.  They travel the world and come home to all of Becky's purchases.  But was it smooth sailing the whole time?  Was it a perfect year?

I love that Kinsella was inspired to write this short story.  I'm glad it was free too!  Though it had what I believe is the desired effect, I want to read more Shopaholic.  I don't own Shopaholic to the Stars yet.  I want now more than I did before.  I'm itching to read more Kinsella.  I do have a couple of her stand-alone books that I haven't read yet.  Maybe it's time for Twenties Girl or Can You Keep A Secret?.  I have been spending some time commuting with strangers this week, maybe Can You Keep A Secret? is the perfect book to be reading.  I think I just need more Sophie Kinsella in my life.

The Silkworm

The Silkworm was everything I hoped it would be. Robert Galbraith's* second novel was every bit as good as The Cuckoo's Calling. I love Strike. I love Robin. I'm really interested to see where their relationship is going, as I think it is the driving force behind the book and series. I'm also interested in seeing how Robin and Matthew's relationship changes as she changes.

Minor  Spoilers

In the aftermath of the Lula Landry case, Strike built on his 15 minutes of fame. (It is what I hoped would happen.) Then one day, tired, he takes on a case from pushy Leonora Quine. I really hoped that Galbraith wouldn't do a second time what he did with The Cuckoo's Calling and make the killer the person who hired Strike. I was pleased with that and everything that happened in the novel. It was exciting and fluid. I had to know what happened next.

I really liked all the new characters we got to meet. We got to meet one of Strike's half-siblings on his father's side. I loved Al. I definitely want to get to know him better. I felt so bad for Nina, though she was a bit pushy and presumptuous. Strike has some interesting and diverse friends. I really liked Robin's mother too. I'm excited to see how their social circles expand and collide. I'm already checking, hoping, to soon have another Coromon Strike novel.

* I know it's really J.K. Rowling.  I just like to pretend.

Emma

Emma was so clueless! Emma is the story of Emma Woodhouse, a very vain girl who basically thinks herself better than everyone else. She assumes that she is smarter, higher class and more clever. She fancies herself a matchmaker, which takes her on an interesting adventure through the lives of her friends and family. I can see why someone decided to make a modern interpretation of Emma. Emma is vain, but endearing. Jane Austen fills her novel full of drama and distinct personalities. It is all seen through Emma, but the personalities of the other characters shine through (wasn't Mrs. Elton insufferable?!). Emma takes a journey and I think she becomes a better person. 

I was excited and enthralled by Emma.  It's pretty close to becoming my favourite Austen...  I often found myself talking to Emma or rolling my eyes at her. I connected with her even though she was not always sympathetic.  I really enjoyed her cluelessness. I called all the matches, even the ones that didn't relate to Clueless, but I was an outsider looking in.  Emma saw what she wanted, used her ideas of society and propriety and wishful thinking.

After reading Sarah's guest post on Roof Beam Reader (the host of Austen In August), I've been thinking about marriage in Austen's novels and in Austen's time.  You really did not want to be an unmarried woman. Except for maybe Emma, if the women in the novel did not get married or have some other man to take care of them, what would become of them?  Become a governess?  A low-paying job with little respect (which I don't understand, wouldn't you want the person taking care of your children to feel some sort of attachment to them?  If you didn't respect or pay them well, how well would they teach your children?).  Look at what happened to the Dashwoods in Sense and Sensibility. In Pride and Prejudice Mrs. Bennet's overly-eager behaviour regarding marrying off her daughters can be understandable if they would be left destitute otherwise.  I suppose that was another time.  At least now, a woman can make a living (almost as much money as a man, but that's another topic) and not worry about being homeless if she doesn't marry.  (For more, read Sarah's post.)

Was "Jane" a common name in Jane Austen's time?  Or does it signify something in the characters who bare the author's name. Jane Bennet, was a quiet, lovely girl and so was Jane Fairfax (I really liked and felt sorry for Jane Fairfax for most of the novel). After difficulties and misunderstandings, they find love, though not front and centre like Lizzy and Emma.

Emma certainly left me thinking more than I expect it would.  I knew I would like Emma, I just didn't know how much I would love it..... Now I have to watch Clueless! 

Title 7/60 for The Classics Club.

Austen in August is hosted by Adam at Roof Beam Reader.

Clockwork Angel

Cassandra Clare apparently likes to write the main male character as a huge jerk (I had considered swearing, but I'm trying to keep it clean.)  Will definitely surpasses Jace in his jerkiness though. Maybe it's a Herondale thing? I get that something bad happened to Will as a child, but does he have to be so unbelievably mean to everyone? He was so awful to Tessa at the end, even if he does fix whatever his problem is, I don't know how she could forgive him.

I really enjoyed Clockwork Angel, the first book in Clare's Infernal Devices trilogy. The Infernal Devices are the prequel to her popular The Mortal Instruments series (the first book, City of Bones is now a movie being released on August 21.) I really enjoyed the first three Mortal Instruments books, so when I saw Clockwork Angel on sale on day, I thought I'd like it too.  Later I purchased (also on sale) Clockwork Prince and Clockwork Princess. I have all the books and after reading Clockwork Angel, I can't wait to read them

Tessa has had the worst time if it in Clockwork Angel.  Her kidnapping, her brother, her ability. She doesn't know anything about herself until all this badness starts happening.  Not that it's been easy going for everyone. Charlotte has to struggle to hold on to power. I quite enjoyed Tessa's preconceptions of men's and women's roles changing as the story progressed. Women Shadowhunters were just as valuable in battle as the men, they could be in charge, there are just as intelligent.

I also have to mention that I love Jem.  He's on the cover of Clockwork Prince, so I'm hoping there's more of him in the second book.  He's sweet and intelligent and has an interesting back story.  Having read Clare's previous series and having read a lot books where the lead has two possible matches, though I think Tessa will eventually end up with Will, at this point I'd pick Jem.  

I've read across a lot of blogs that many people preferred The Infernal Devices over The Mortal Instruments. After reading the first book, I don't really see why that opinion is so prevalent.  I enjoyed Clockwork Angel, a lot. Would I say that it was better than City of Bones? No. Honestly, I think they're about the same. Maybe my opinion will change once I've read the whole series, we will see. 

I'm excited to read the rest of the series, all of which I'm glad I own. It's going to be delayed a little though. I finally got my copy of this novel that's been out for a few months, by this new author named Robert Galbraith. Anyone heard of him?

Classics Club

I’m a moody reader.  I read a variety of books, at different levels, in different genres.  Because of this, I don’t join challenges.  If I feel forced to read a book, I’ll avoid it and continue to avoid it, until I grudgingly pick it up.  Joining the Classics Club, however, has been something I’ve thought about for a while.  I wasn’t sure about joining because of the pertinent question: what constitutes a classic?  I follow several bloggers who are part of the Classics Club and after reading their reviews, I think I have a good idea of what the Club considers classic.

My list consists of “Modern Classics” and “Old Classics”.  There are some genre books, some short stories, some children’s books and some poetry.  There are even a couple books that can be debated about whether they are actually classics.  There will be a few re-reads, but it will be mostly new.  These are all books I already own.  On the Classics Club website, they describe the list we submit as a living list.  While I’ve put 60 titles on this list (to make it a little more challenging, since I'm including children’s stories, short stories and novellas), I’m not guaranteeing that I’ll read all these particular books.  Like I mentioned previously, I’m a moody reader.  If I can’t finish something or another classic catches my fancy, I’ll change the list.  The only thing I plan on guaranteeing is that I’ll finish this list in five years - January 3, 2018 (I'll be so old!).

In alphabetical order, 60 classics I plan on reading by January 3, 2018:

1. Stories from Hans Christian Andersen, by Hans Christian Andersen

2. The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood

3. Alias Grace, by Margaret Atwood

4. The Big and The Little, by Isaac Asimov

5. Emma, by Jane Austen

6. Lady Susan, by Jane Austen

7. Mansfield Park, by Jane Austen

8. Northhanger Abbey, by Jane Austen

9. The Watsons, by Jane Austen

10. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum

11. The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, by Anne Brontë

12. Villette, by Charlotte Brontë

13. Sonnets from the Portuguese, by Elizabeth Barrett Browning

14. Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll

15. Appointment with Death, by Agatha Christie

16. Lyrical Ballads, by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and William Wordsworth

17. The Woman in White, by Wilkie Collins

18. Discourse on Method, by Rene Descartes

19. A Tale of Two Cities, by Dickens

20. Little Dorrit, by Charles Dickens

21. A Selection of Poems (1. Life), by Emily Dickinson

22. Sherlock Holmes #1: A Study In Scarlett, by Arthur Conan Doyle

23. Sherlock Holmes #2: The Sign of Four, by Arthur Conan Doyle

24. Medea, by Euripides

25. Middlemarch, by George Eliot

26. Grimm's Fairy Stories, by Jacob Grimm & Wilhelm Grimm

27. Their Eyes Were Watching God, by Zora Neale Hurston

28. Daisy Miller, by Henry James

29. The Wings of the Dove, by Henry James

30. The Stone Angel, by Margaret Laurence

31. The Man Who Loved Islands, by D.H. Lawrence

32. Death of a Salesman, by Arthur Miller

33. Anne of Green Gables, by L.M. Montgomery

34. Anne of Avonlea, by L.M. Montgomery

35. Anne of the Island, by L.M. Montgomery

36. Anne of the Windy Poplars, by L.M. Montgomery

37. Anne’s House of Dreams, by L.M. Montgomery

38. Anne of Ingleside, by L.M. Montgomery

39. Rainbow Valley, by L.M. Montgomery

40. Rilla of Ingleside, by L.M. Montgomery

41. Lives of Girls and Women, by Alice Munro

42. Animal Farm, by George Orwell

43. Lady Lazarus, by Sylvia Plath

44. The Raven, by Edgar Allan Poe

45. The Tale of Peter Rabbit, by Beatrix Potter

46. The Cat In The Hat, by Dr. Seuss

47. Macbeth, by William Shakespeare

48. Queen Mab/The Daemon of the World, by Percy Bysshe Shelley

49. Treasure Island, by Robert Louis Stevenson

50. Dracula's Guest, by Bram Stoker

51. Anna Karenina, by Leo Tolstoy

52. Tom Sawyer, by Mark Twain

53. From the Earth to the Moon, by Jules Verne

54. The Weapons Shop, by A.E. van Vogt

55. The Time Machine, by H.G. Wells

56. Under The Knife, by H.G. Wells

57. The Velveteen Rabbit, by Margery Williams

58. Kew Gardens, by Virginia Woolf

59. Solid Objects, by Virginia Woolf

60. The Waves, by Virginia Woolf

I will have a page listing each of these books, with links to reviews once I finish them.

*SIDE NOTE: I’ve been considering creating some reading projects for myself.  For example, I want to read every Margaret Atwood and Stephen King book.  I also want to read more Canadian authors and more immigrant literature.  Should I create these self-imposed projects, or will my moodiness negate my success?  Thoughts?