Dewey Readathon 2012 {1}

I slept in today, so I’ve actually only been reading for a couple of hours as of now. And I thought I’d update now, as I’m taking a short break to eat my lunch. I finally got past the boring beginning of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The House of Seven Gables. I was honestly about ready to give it up. As I’ve said in the past, I don’t like books that go such a long time without any dialogue between characters. This took about 40 pages to get into the better part–I say better because it is not great by any means. But at least it’s better. I think I will end up liking it, but I have about 300 pages to read and I don’t know if I will even finish it today!

Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress Parts I & II discussion for RBC (SPOILERS)

Here are my thoughts on the first half of Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress. I’m reading this for a book club discussion, hosted at Rory’s Book Club (RBC) (click here to see the discussion threads).

I’ve found this book to be very interesting so far. I haven’t really spent a lot of time in communist China in books before, so it is very interesting to read about that time. My book’s blurb about the author says that he was re-educated between 1971-1974. And I think that makes me more intrigued by the story–the fact that it’s semi-autobiographical. Or at least that mountain villages and people are somewhat accurate in representation, since he experienced them first-hand.

I, of course, enjoy the fact that much of the story centers on Luo and the narrator (I don’t recall his name being mentioned yet) attaining forbidden books. One has to wonder, would they want to read them if they were allowed to? Or, given the chance, would they read Eastern classics over Western ones? Personally, I’ve never read anything by any of these authors except Dumas. (Authors mentioned were Balzac, Hugo, Stendhal, Dumas, Flaubert, Baudelaire, Romain Rolland, Rousseau, Tolstoy, Gogol, Dostoyevsky, Dickens, Kipling and E Bronte.)

I have to say that I’m a little surprised that the narrator and Luo didn’t fight over the Little Seamstress. And Luo is the more confident one, as far as the storytelling goes. I can’t help but wonder, if the Little Seamstress is so beautiful, how the narrator has no feelings of wanting her at all. It’s a little strange that we don’t really know anything about Luo’s and the Little Seamstress’s relationship–but all of the sudden, the narrator mentions that they had sex (and even a little detail, at that!). It makes me wonder whether or not that relationship really means anything. But, then again, the narrator just might not relate everything Luo says. The narrator seems to feel inferior to Luo, but is totally okay with it. And I find that a little strange…

Oh, and I’m wondering if there’s any significance to that rooster clock. If the villagers went through all the belongings that the two boy brought with them and saw anything of value, they could’ve taken it and made it “community property”, couldn’t they? (If they were true communists and shared everything, that is.) Or maybe they were just supposed to take away anything “revolutionary”. Either way, it seems like the headman, who so admired the clock, could easily just take it away from the boys. What role will the clock take later, I wonder…

On a previous note, I wonder why the narrator has no name. Even when asked his name by Four-Eyes’ mother, he replied with Luo’s name. What’s the significance to this?!

reading update

I started reading Push by Sapphire (aka Precious) today. Well, actually I’m listening to it on audiobook. And I’m very glad I’m reading it this way. Bahni Turpin is the narrator, and I think it is the way she reads that makes the story so interesting. I’m assuming the book is written in dialect. And, sure I enjoy reading that type of narration because it’s more descriptive of the time and place of the book. But having it read (I hate to say it this way) by an African American woman, plus the dialect from the book is making the story just amazing. And I only listened to about 30 minutes of it!

Oh, and I thought I’d go ahead and just add that Michelle at My Books. My Life. has made me want to read Tiny Sunbirds, Far Away by Christie Watson with her review. I read a summary of it already, but was hesitant to read it. Her review has completely changed my mind

Tenant of Wildfell Hall Ch. 29-40 (RBC discussion, SPOILERS)

This third section is, I think, my favorite of the whole book so far. It’s just really interesting because there is a lot going on and we finally get some answers to some questions.

To begin with, we finally figure out what exactly it is that Mr. Huntingdon did to tick off Helen: he had an affair with Annabella (Lady Lowborough). But I thought it was interesting that this wasn’t the straw that broke the camel’s back. But, then again, with the time-period the book I can understand why it is that Helen didn’t leave as soon as she found out about the affair. Helen stuck it out for about two years, living at home with her “husband”–I’m sure if they had Facebook, their relationship status would’ve been “separated” or “in an open relationship” Anyways…I give Helen a lot of credit for sticking it out. It must be hell to live alongside a person whom you hate. But, as I don’t have children of my own, I don’t think that I could empathize with her. I won’t know until I have children just what I’d go through for them. (Although I know I would go through a lot for my husband, sisters, and other close family/friends.) But what made Helen decide to finally leave Mr. Huntingdon was that little Arthur, at the tender age of four, was already mimicking his father I cannot imagine a four-year-old behaving the way Helen described it. (I have to admit that the first thing I thought of in regards to a tipsy tot was Stewie from Family Guy, an American cartoon.) But that would definitely scare me into wanting to leave!

But then something pretty unexpected happened, and right at the end of our section! Mr. H found out that Helen was planning to run away and confiscated pretty much anything of hers with value so she couldn’t get money. So we’re left with a cliff hanger before the next section, leaving us wanting to know how she ends up leaving him if he did this. I mean, maybe he does end up dying, although the fact that Helen acts as a fugitive makes it appear he’s alive and well. But, at least now we know at least one of the bad things Mr. H did.

One thing that I noticed about the men in this section is that they tend to know when they are behaving like imbeciles. Mr. H, for example, was misbehaving in order to gain attention. Well, at least from Helen’s biased viewpoint And Hattersley basically told Helen that he couldn’t be bothered to think about what he does. He wants Millicent to be his moral compass–to tell him when he does wrong–so that he doesn’t have to be bothered to think. Hattersley just seems lazy when I tells Helen this. And Mr. H appears needy. But I think that these are weird behavior patterns to gain what they want. If they know that they’re not doing good/right things, why bother doing them at all? Mr. H should remember that he’d be paid attention for good and not just bad–Helen always doted on him when he did right. But I’m pretty glad that I personally don’t know anyone who acts like this…at least not all the time

So, the questions I still need answered are these: How is Mr. Lawrence involved in Helen’s plight? How did Helen finally run away? and Does Mr. H actually track them down (if alive, which I think he is) before the book ends?

thoughts on Tenant of Wildfell Hall: Ch. 15-28 (RBC discussion, SPOILERS)

(Here is a link to my post about the first 14 chapters of Tenant of Wildfell Hall by Anne Bronte.)

This second section of the book is sooo interesting!! It’s during this section that we finally learn about Helen’s past. For the first 14-ish chapters we’re left completely wondering what happened in her past that led her to bring her small son and move into Wildfell Hall. The way that Helen behaves in relation to little Arthur leads us to believe that something happened in her past, probably with Arthur’s father (Mr. Arthur Huntingdon), that makes her want to protect him and not let him even have the chance to learn how to become another version of his father. But even within this grouping of chapters, some of my questions have been left quite unresolved. Such as: What happened between Helen and Mr. H to make her be a Mrs. Graham living in Wildfell Hall? Did he actually die? Did they divorce (heaven forbid for someone as pious as Helen)? Did she actually run away from him and “kidnap” little Arthur? This last possibility makes a little sense–Mrs. Graham could be a made up name and her reasoning for titling her paintings with different geographic locations could all indicate that she is trying to hide from Mr. H. But one of the greatest questions of all (for me at least) is, what does Mr. Lawrence have to do with any of this? Is he perhaps privvy to Helen’s schemes and helping her out?

One thing that I realized especially in this section is Helen’s regard towards Mr. H. Very close to the end of this section is when Helen is finally getting fed up with him, but before that I noticed a trend. Helen would start a diary entry being very mad at something Mr. H did, but by the end of the entry, she would’ve forgiven him because he promised to not do such things again. Now, this wouldn’t be bad if she didn’t always lament about how he can never be in earnest or speak seriously on any subjects. Wouldn’t you think that a person who knows someone else never is serious about what they say would know that they may not be truthful in their promises to stop doing “bad” things?? I would think Helen would’ve caught on to this. But she must have been completely blinded by love. And her thoughts that she could change Mr. H.

Which leads me to another point: marrying people that have faults when you think you can change them doesn’t always work! I know this from personal experience. My oldest aunt married her husband probably a little under 30 years ago. He’d been married before and surely had his faults (controlling/domineering is putting it lightly). But she was young, as far as her experience with men goes (she was in her later 20s), and she thought she could change him. But she couldn’t. And, while they’re not divorced or separated–she’s too “Christian” to give up on him (essentially her own words)–he lives in California and she lives in Ohio (that’s about 2000 miles). This has been the situation for about 6-7 years. So, thinking you can change someone only works if they’re somewhat willing to change.

~*~JANE EYRE & WUTHERING HEIGHTS SPOILERS~*~
And one last thing that I want to talk about is that I’m really liking Mr. H as a villain. Let me explain…I read a lot of Jane Austen–or reread, rather. I feel her villains are often very similar to each other. Now, I know the Bronte sisters are three different authors, and therefore their villains will be different. But I feel their stories are similar in a very general sense–with a woman wronged by the villain (that’s why he’s a villain!) But their villains are so different. Mr. Rochester (Jane Eyre) isn’t known to be bad until towards the ending, while Heathcliff (Wuthering Heights)  is essentially bad right off. But Mr. H is in between. He’s not bad right off, at least not the way Helen sees him. But he’s certainly known to be bad before the ending. I just like that he’s different Obviously I don’t care for his character.
~*~END SPOILERS~*~

I can’t wait to keep reading to find out the answers to my earlier questions!!

Tenant of Wildfell Hall Ch.1-14 thoughts (RBC Discussion, SPOILERS)

NOTE: If you’d like to read and/or discuss (if you have already read) The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by Anne Bronte, there is a discussion thread for it at the Rory’s Book Club website. If you click here, it will take you there. It’s never too late to join in

I really enjoyed this beginning. I especially liked the first chapter, in which Markham describes the residents of the village and how Bronte wrote it. Markham was supposed to have been writing the descriptions to a friend of his in a letter, but yet it didn’t exactly feel like a letter when reading it. The beginning was typical of the Bronte sisters. It was slower moving, but still sort of building up something that lets you know it’s going to get interesting if you can stick through it.

Question #3 asks “Chapter 3 deals with the question of how to raise a young boy. What do you make of this debate, and does the novel come down on one side or the other?” And I kept this question in mind when I was reading. And, quite frankly, I love the little debate that comes from Mrs. Graham’s treatment of Arthur. I think it deserves some direct quotes to illustrate the debate:

“What is it that constitutes virtue, Mrs. Graham? Is it the circumstance of being able and willing to resist temptation; or that of having no temptations to resist?…If you would have your son to walk honorably through the world, you must not attempt to clear the stones from his path, but teach him to walk firmly over them–not insist upon leading him by the hand, but let him learn to go alone.”
p22, Markham’s side

|

“It must be either that you think she [women in general] is essentially so vicious, or so feeble-minded, that she cannot withstand temptation, and though she may be pure and innocent as long as she is kept in ignorance and restraint, yet, being destitute of real virtue, to teach her how to sin is at once to make her a sinner, and the greater her knowledge, the wider her liberty, the deeper will be her depravity…”
p25, Mrs. Graham’s side

Essentially, there is some hypocritical line of logic in Markham. What you might not get from the quotes is that Markham says young boys shouldn’t be brought up to have no temptations but to know how to resist them–they can’t be virtuous if they’re brought up in ignorance. And Mrs. Graham says, “Well, what about girls? Can’t they have virtue even though they aren’t brought up to know temptation, but to be completely concealed from it?” And basically Markham is befuddled at this–he doesn’t really come up with a great answer as to how virtue applies to the sexes. Since they’re brought up in different ways, perhaps they have different definitions of “virtue” for boys and girls??

Moving on…

I don’t know what to think of Mrs. Graham. Towards the end of this section, she is seen in private with Mr. Lawrence. They’re just talking…and touching intimately (for the time). But Markham is in love with Mrs. Graham and at times it appears she is trying not to feel anything for him. So, does she love Markham or is there really something going on between herself and Mr. L?

And what of the fact that Markham assaulted Mr. L in Chapter 14?! What was that? I mean, Markham technically had no incentive to whip Mr. L. Yes, he believes Mrs. Graham might be loving Mr. L, but that’s not Mr. L’s problem. Maybe this physical fight is the male version of what might happen between women if they were fighting for the same man–which, I imagine, would’ve been just talking/gossiping about each other, etc.

But I can’t wait to hear Mrs. Graham’s history! I want to know what happened to what I’m assuming is a sleaze-ball of a husband. He has to be pretty bad if she’s so smothering of Arthur, in my opinion.

thoughts on View from Castle Rock, Part I

For Rory’s Book Club, we are currently reading/discussing The View from Castle Rock by Alice Munro.

Today, August 22nd, we begin discussing “Part I: No Advantages”. As with our last book for discussion (We Have Always Lived in the Castle), I will post the same thing on here as on the RBC discussion thread.

So here goes…

So far, View from Castle Rock has been pretty interesting to me. The fact that Munro is using fictional short stories all compiled into this one book to describe her own family’s history intrigues me. As I love history, I often enjoy historical fiction, of which these short stories have an element. For all I know about Munro, it’s possible that these stories are more truth than fiction–even the locations of where the narrator grew up make her sound like Munro, as described in the back of the book jacket.

Each story so far has progressed by generation, up until the last story of the part in which the narrator (no name given yet) has been largely involved. The very first story, “No Advantages,” was my least favorite story so far. I was, to be blunt, utterly bored with this story. It is the farthest back in history, before Scotland became part of Great Britain (if I remember correctly). I actually fell asleep twice while reading this story–and I wasn’t reading them at bed time I was just THAT bored. The tales of the narrator’s great-great-great-great-grandfather, Will O’Phaup (Will of Far Hope), and his run-ins with witches and feats of long distance running were few, but the most interesting part of the story.

Thank god I remembered this book is compiled of SHORT STORIES. If it hadn’t been, I would have put the book down for good because of the first story. But, short stories aren’t always similar, so I decided to give the second story, “The View from Castle Rock,” a try. And it has been my favorite so far, with the narrator’s family coming from Scotland to Canada. And this I enjoyed most because it had that sweet, lovable character, Walter

A passage that I particularly enjoyed was found in “Working for a Living”: the story the narrator herself begins telling the whole story of her father.

He [the narrator's father] would die leaving a sick crippled wife who could not even take care of herself, an old mother full of disappointment, a younger daughter whose health had always been delicate, an older girl who was strong and bright enough but who often seemed to be self-centered and mysteriously incompetent, a son who promised to be clever and reliable but who was still only a little boy…

“Was that all you thought about?” I said when he told me this.

“Wasn’t that enough?” he said, and went on to tell me how he pulled one leg out of the snow, and then the other: he got out of that drift and…He got home.

The reason I like this passage is because it seems to show us the different views on dying, as thought by two different generations. This difference in view could be because of the ages of the father and narrator; but it might also have something to do with the way both were brought up and lived their lives. Interestingly enough, the father calls the narrator a “self-centered and mysteriously incompetent” girl in the first paragraph I quoted. This is immediately proven by her asking, essentially, why he didn’t think anything of himself when he might be dying.

I have to admit that, I think that I would sort of ask the same thing the narrator does. I mean, yes, it might be a little self-centered to wonder how one could not think of himself/herself when about to die. If I was in a situation in which I could soon die, I think I would first think of all of the stuff I’d be missing out on. This, in turn, would lead me to think of Nick (my fiance) because most of those things I haven’t done yet include him as well. And, if I had children, I’m sure they might pop in there too–all the things I didn’t get to do with them. But these all include me! I wouldn’t think of only Nick or our future children–I would think of them and myself.

This could explain why the narrator and her father disagree. He has a wife, a mother, and children–she has none of those things. So is it natural for her to think of herself, since she might not have such a strong bond to any other human? And is it natural for him to think of everyone else but himself because he worries for their futures and not necessarily (like me) what he will miss with them? I think I’d be more willing to feel the same emotions as the father if I have lived to older age and my children are all old/experienced enough to have me not need to worry about what I will miss with them–if my children have children, I would just worry about them doing right by there children, I guess.

trying something i don’t typically like

In an effort to get back into the Rory’s Book Club (RBC) a little (I’ve really been growing away from it lately), I am reading a sort of book I don’t typically like: short stories. As far as collections of short stories go, I don’t like them. The point is simply this: when one story is over, I have difficulty starting the next one.

I did, however, find a perfect use for short stories during my busiest semester of university: when I was too busy to read a whole book, but still wanted to read a little at a time for pleasure, short stories were perfect. Of course, I dumped this book (a collection of Evelyn Waugh) as soon as I had time for real books again.

But I digress…I am going to be reading The View from Castle Rock by Alice Munro. As far as I can tell, these are short stories that sort of flow together in an order to sort of create a longer story. Like some of Wodehouse’s Jeeves books (I do like Jeeves ). This will be discussed on the RBC forums. If anyone else has read or wants a reason to read this book, there is always more room for discussion. A forum will discuss it on the Book Discussions page of RBC. (If I remember, I’ll post the direct link to the forum once it becomes available…)

enjoying The Secret River

As I’m working my way through The Secret River, I’m realizing that I just love the story. I’m probably 1/3 of the way through, and can hardly put it down.

To paraphrase the book jacket, the story follows William Thornhill. He came from a poor family in London and was apprenticed for a long time, after which he married. As a professional water man–essentially, a water-taxi service on the Thames, as it 1806 when he finished his apprenticeship–he doesn’t make much money for his labor and his family is growing. He is caught stealing and is sentenced to die, but is pardoned in exchange for spending the rest of his life in Australia.

This is most of what I have read so far. I find Australia as a colony fascinating, because it was, for so long, a place to send the unwanted people from England. I like reading about this time period in almost any part of the world–many of you will remember I love Jane Austen, which takes place in the 1810s (Regency-era). But I love this time period in the US, as we were a new country. A couple of books back, I was reading Island Beneath the Sea, which takes place at this time in Haiti/Cuba/New Orleans.

As I posted about a few weeks ago, I started, and then stopped shortly after, to read Carpentaria by Alexis Wright. From what I understood the story to be about, I thought it was going to be set in the time period of The Secret River. But it was more contemporary than I thought. And I thought that it would therefore be about the beginning of the Australian colony and the clashes between the British citizens and the aboriginal people, again, like The Secret River. But it wasn’t. Essentially, The Secret River is, so far, everything I thought Carpentaria would be. But alas! I’m just glad I found a story that I wanted to read and was interested in, even if I had to start/stop another book to find it

Home-from-Vacation Update

I am officially home from vacation I did a lot of reading while I was away, because it was a little cooler than normal summers. However, as much reading as I did, I only finished 1 book completely and read about half of another, which I just finished today.

One thing that I realized when I couldn’t write on this blog was that, given I have the time, I like to write about my reactions to my books as I read them and not just sum everything up at the end of the novel. I realize that this means I will include spoilers, but I will give fair warning, if that is the case.

|

The book I read while on vacation was called Island Beneath the Sea by Isabel Allende. I will post what I physically wrote on vacation in this post, but create a separate post for my review/summary of it.

June 28, 2010
I’m really liking this so far! I’m about 1/4 into it, and we still haven’t gotten to the slave revolution in Haiti. From the description on the book jacket, I’d thought this revolution would make up a major part. It could still be, since I’m not that far into it.

Nevertheless, I’m still enjoying how it is being built up! Haiti seems exotic, but the slavery really isn’t different from what it would be if it had been set in the American colonies. One part that particularly interested me is Eugenia. ~*~SPOILER~*~ She is the wife of a French plantation owner and she is , essentially, demented. She reminds me of Radcliffe’s wife in Jane Eyre, except her husband doesn’t hide her–he just ignores she exists. He thinks it’s his responsibility to put up with her and not place her somewhere. ~*~END SPOILER~*~ Eugenia also believes deeply in the voodoo that the slaves practice, and I think it’s very interesting how that voodoo works.

Another interesting occurrence so far into this book is a conversation about whether or not Africans are human. The plantation owner, obviously, feels they are less than human, while someone he knows feels the opposite. Here is the owner’s rationale: “Blacks have the constitution for heavy work, they feel less pain and fatigue, their brain power is limited, they do not know how to make choices, they are violent, disorderly, lazy, and they lack ambition and noble sentiments.” (p81) It makes me sad as a human being to know that people for the longest time believed this was true…and some still do, to an extent.

June 29, 2010
I’ve finally reached the point in the novel when the revolution started. Now that I think about it, Allende didn’t spend too much time building up to it. Now that it has happened, she skips right ahead to the life for Valmorain (plantation owner) and Tete (slave, narrator for some chapters) and the children after they flee Saint Domnigue (Haiti). This surprised me, as I figured the whole novel would be more historical than fiction and I’m starting to wonder if it can be historical fiction.

While discussing the revolts and rebellion, Allende brought up something I hadn’t thought of before. She wrote: “The [white] women were converted into slaves and concubines, just as black women had been on the plantations.” I suppose I didn’t think about it because we didn’t have major slave revolts in the US.

~*~SPOILER~*~ The overseer of Valmorain’s plantation, Prosper Cambray, found it cowardly that Valmorain would flee when the slaves marched en masse toward his house. Cambray later kills himself because slaves were too close to capturing him. Contradictory? I think so. ~*~END SPOILER~*~

I was a little disappointed in something Allende did. She did something I think was very predictable. ~*~SPOILER~*~ She killed off Relais! The army officer. She alluded to Relais and Violette (his wife) having seen each other for the last time. So either of them could’ve died. I had hoped she might kill Violette as it wasn’t as probable as Relais dying, because it would be less predictable (not that I wanted either to die). ~*~END SPOILER~*~

You might wonder, why even write something if it’s got a lot of spoilers in it. But I think it’s important to keep all thoughts together. This way if someone who has read the book as well wants to, they can easily respond to it. And for those who might be interested and want a peek of the book, the spoilers can get them interested