I'm really not sure how I feel about The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame. Honestly, I'm torn.
I couldn't focus on it. I would read maybe a chapter and be done. It took me 2 months to read. I've finished books I've hated faster. I didn't hate the book. Maybe that's why it was so hard for me to read.
It evoked no strong emotions in me.
Being a children's book, I expected an easy read. It was easy enough I guess. I read half of the book today. I had to force myself to read it that long, but it wasn't because it was hard. Just because I wasn't interested.
I kind of feel like Grahame took weighty ideas, tried to simplify them for children, and made them less deep and interesting. Maybe if I was still a kid it would be deep enough for me. But I'm not.
The only character I really cared about was Mole. I had minor interest in Ratty's well being. Toad just irritated me. The rest of the characters I was apathetic about. If the book had been about Mole, I think I could have read more of it faster. Instead it talked about all the animals and especially towards the end, it focused a lot on Toad. It also bugged me that Toad got away with so much--though the ending kind of made up for that.
I vaguely remember reading the book as a kid and I vaguely remember liking it, so take my review with a grain of salt. I don't think the book is bad. It just didn't hold my interest.
So, my final opinion on the book is: Good for kids, not good for me.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
BBC #8, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)
THIS ENTIRE POST WILL PRETTY MUCH BE A SPOILER. If you're ok with that, keep reading.
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell is one of the most thought provoking books I've read so far. I finished it today and since the moment I finished it, I've found myself contemplating what it says.
This book was first published in 1949 as a warning of where the world was headed if something didn't change. According to Orwell's "vision", we were headed for continuing World Wars (can't really blame him since the one he'd just come out of was the second in only a matter of decades) until 3 large totalitarianism states emerged. The nature of the wars would change, but it would continue indefinitely. These totalitarianism states would rule under the guise of "socialism" and protecting the people, but really be lead by the elite, power hungry, political leaders of the day simply as a means of achieving the ultimate power--complete control of human thought. As is written near the end of the book "Power is God." These leaders didn't care one whiff about the people in their countries. They simply cared about becoming "gods."
The main character in the book is a man named Winston Smith. My guess is the name Winston came from Winston Churchill as the character was supposedly born in the late 1940's, right after WWII. Smith is simply the most common last name. In other words, he's a normal man named after one of the most influential exponents of freedom during his time. Winston, like his namesake, is a believer in freedom. The novel follows his discoveries of lies and untruths behind the totalitarian party (Ingsoc), his search for freedom, and his ultimate failure.
I have several problems with the positions Orwell takes in the book, however many of these issues are derived from the fact I'm reading this book in 2011 (17 years after the story "happened"), not in 1949 when it was written (34 years BEFORE it "happened"). For example, in the countries that make up the fictional "Oceania", there is a far greater middle class than is depicted in the book. The book depicts an upper elite--the Inner Party, a middle class--the outer party, and the lower class--the proles (proletarians). The Proles make up 85% of the population. They are the uneducated, the poor, the ones who do the basic jobs of society. Going back to original Roman usage, and supported by statements made by Orwell ("the woman down there had no mind, she had only strong arms, a warm heart, and a fertile belly"), The proles were the nothings of society. They had nothing to offer but menial labor and a continuous supply of new children to grow up and become more proles.
In today's society, in America, and in Britain where the book is based, the poor of the poor--the true proletarians--are a rather small percentage of the population. It's only by expanding the word proletarian to include the working class, as Marx did, that we come even close to that number. Still, the middle class is larger than the book says, making the number of proletarians smaller--and most of these proletarians are fairly well educated. If all of the working class of today is included as proletarians then Orwell's assumption that the proletarians don't have the consciousness to rise up is false. However, the level of education that existed for the lower class in 1949 is completely different. Also, more "middle class" (intellectual, not manual labor) jobs have been created since that time due to increases in technology.
"If there is hope it lies in the proles".
Unlike the end of the book concludes, I agree with Winston's statement. The proletarians, the working class, are truly where the hope of society springs from. The elite do not "hope" for change. Change may take them out of their seats of power. The middle class may dream of change, but they are generally content enough to not force a change. They have "enough". It's the people on the bottom, the people who have nothing that will make the changes.
Of course Orwell didn't have past experiences showing him the hope the proles themselves offered. He hadn't seen the Berlin Wall fall. He hadn't seen the Soviet Union collapse. Why did these nations do that? Because the proles had enough.
Another good example is what's happened in the middle east lately. First Tunisia, then Egypt and now Libya. The proles have had enough. And they're fighting for themselves.
Unlike the books statements, my fear isn't that the proles won't ever stand up for themselves. It's that the proles will take their cause too far. We don't need another French Revolution.
**Edit August 31, 2011: So, most of this was written on June 25, 2011. I finished the book and felt crazy motivated to write it. Then I got tired, didn't know how to finish and put it aside for later. And forgot. Until today. I finally decided to post it. Since I'm probably going to finish another book in the next few weeks, I figured I'd get this out before I forget I read it!!
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell is one of the most thought provoking books I've read so far. I finished it today and since the moment I finished it, I've found myself contemplating what it says.
This book was first published in 1949 as a warning of where the world was headed if something didn't change. According to Orwell's "vision", we were headed for continuing World Wars (can't really blame him since the one he'd just come out of was the second in only a matter of decades) until 3 large totalitarianism states emerged. The nature of the wars would change, but it would continue indefinitely. These totalitarianism states would rule under the guise of "socialism" and protecting the people, but really be lead by the elite, power hungry, political leaders of the day simply as a means of achieving the ultimate power--complete control of human thought. As is written near the end of the book "Power is God." These leaders didn't care one whiff about the people in their countries. They simply cared about becoming "gods."
The main character in the book is a man named Winston Smith. My guess is the name Winston came from Winston Churchill as the character was supposedly born in the late 1940's, right after WWII. Smith is simply the most common last name. In other words, he's a normal man named after one of the most influential exponents of freedom during his time. Winston, like his namesake, is a believer in freedom. The novel follows his discoveries of lies and untruths behind the totalitarian party (Ingsoc), his search for freedom, and his ultimate failure.
I have several problems with the positions Orwell takes in the book, however many of these issues are derived from the fact I'm reading this book in 2011 (17 years after the story "happened"), not in 1949 when it was written (34 years BEFORE it "happened"). For example, in the countries that make up the fictional "Oceania", there is a far greater middle class than is depicted in the book. The book depicts an upper elite--the Inner Party, a middle class--the outer party, and the lower class--the proles (proletarians). The Proles make up 85% of the population. They are the uneducated, the poor, the ones who do the basic jobs of society. Going back to original Roman usage, and supported by statements made by Orwell ("the woman down there had no mind, she had only strong arms, a warm heart, and a fertile belly"), The proles were the nothings of society. They had nothing to offer but menial labor and a continuous supply of new children to grow up and become more proles.
In today's society, in America, and in Britain where the book is based, the poor of the poor--the true proletarians--are a rather small percentage of the population. It's only by expanding the word proletarian to include the working class, as Marx did, that we come even close to that number. Still, the middle class is larger than the book says, making the number of proletarians smaller--and most of these proletarians are fairly well educated. If all of the working class of today is included as proletarians then Orwell's assumption that the proletarians don't have the consciousness to rise up is false. However, the level of education that existed for the lower class in 1949 is completely different. Also, more "middle class" (intellectual, not manual labor) jobs have been created since that time due to increases in technology.
"If there is hope it lies in the proles".
Unlike the end of the book concludes, I agree with Winston's statement. The proletarians, the working class, are truly where the hope of society springs from. The elite do not "hope" for change. Change may take them out of their seats of power. The middle class may dream of change, but they are generally content enough to not force a change. They have "enough". It's the people on the bottom, the people who have nothing that will make the changes.
Of course Orwell didn't have past experiences showing him the hope the proles themselves offered. He hadn't seen the Berlin Wall fall. He hadn't seen the Soviet Union collapse. Why did these nations do that? Because the proles had enough.
Another good example is what's happened in the middle east lately. First Tunisia, then Egypt and now Libya. The proles have had enough. And they're fighting for themselves.
Unlike the books statements, my fear isn't that the proles won't ever stand up for themselves. It's that the proles will take their cause too far. We don't need another French Revolution.
**Edit August 31, 2011: So, most of this was written on June 25, 2011. I finished the book and felt crazy motivated to write it. Then I got tired, didn't know how to finish and put it aside for later. And forgot. Until today. I finally decided to post it. Since I'm probably going to finish another book in the next few weeks, I figured I'd get this out before I forget I read it!!
Monday, June 20, 2011
BBC #17, Great Expectations
The first time I read Great Expectations by Charles Dickens was in 9th grade for my English class. The problem with books assigned by school teachers is you read them with the teacher's expectations in mind. We had in class discussions and had to write an essay on the book. My teacher expected us to focus on the symbolism in the book first and foremost. That's really not my style of reading, and while I can find symbolism, I hated having to focus on it. I had a good opinion of the book, but I don't think I got it and I never expected to read it again--or enjoy it. I've always enjoyed books more when I read them because I want to.
This was true of this read of Great Expectations. I don't know that I would list this as one of my favorite books ever, but I thoroughly enjoyed the read. I read it in two spurts. First night I read it, I read for almost 4 hours. Then I left it at home, my job situation switched, etc. I kind of forgot about it. This weekend I picked it up again. I read almost half of the book today, finishing only minutes ago.
I love the story line, a poor boy is confronted by a change in circumstances and we read of the effects this unguided social change has on his character and the the character of those surrounding him. Charles Dickens always seems to address important social issues of the day and he does a very good job of turning the "bad guys" into the "good guys" and vise versa.
Charles Dickens is a literary genius. The way he artfully twists the story line around, connecting all the characters so masterfully together, interconnecting the beginning and the end so beautifully, it's impossible to understand the characters fully or appreciate their depth until the end of the book. If you put it down in the middle, you'll never really "get it".
I believe a lot of the social issues addressed in this book shed light on the social problems of our day. We have different problems, but reading this book leaves me with the same haunting questions.
I give this book 5 stars. There is no question in my mind why after almost 150 years this book is still being read and critically acclaimed. It's literature in the truest sense. Charles Dickens knew how to write. This is why 5 of his novels show up on the BBC's top 100 list and I bet in another 150 years, people will still be reading his books where many of the other books on the list will be long forgotten.
This was true of this read of Great Expectations. I don't know that I would list this as one of my favorite books ever, but I thoroughly enjoyed the read. I read it in two spurts. First night I read it, I read for almost 4 hours. Then I left it at home, my job situation switched, etc. I kind of forgot about it. This weekend I picked it up again. I read almost half of the book today, finishing only minutes ago.
I love the story line, a poor boy is confronted by a change in circumstances and we read of the effects this unguided social change has on his character and the the character of those surrounding him. Charles Dickens always seems to address important social issues of the day and he does a very good job of turning the "bad guys" into the "good guys" and vise versa.
Charles Dickens is a literary genius. The way he artfully twists the story line around, connecting all the characters so masterfully together, interconnecting the beginning and the end so beautifully, it's impossible to understand the characters fully or appreciate their depth until the end of the book. If you put it down in the middle, you'll never really "get it".
I believe a lot of the social issues addressed in this book shed light on the social problems of our day. We have different problems, but reading this book leaves me with the same haunting questions.
I give this book 5 stars. There is no question in my mind why after almost 150 years this book is still being read and critically acclaimed. It's literature in the truest sense. Charles Dickens knew how to write. This is why 5 of his novels show up on the BBC's top 100 list and I bet in another 150 years, people will still be reading his books where many of the other books on the list will be long forgotten.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
BBC # 21, Gone With The Wind
I read Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchellin 3 days. Yes, you read correctly, 3 days. All 1024 pages of it (that's the number I have off the top of my head--I might be off a few pages...). I read it at work mostly. The final results?
I can't decide if I love or hate the book.
What I Love: The story is really compelling. I've always been a sucker for Historical Fiction, and this book fits into that category. It addresses so many social issues and puts a spin on the Confederacy that you don't normally see. I felt the plight of the southerners and was upset with the Yankees. How could Sherman do that to people? And then the North let the carpetbaggers ravage the south! Yes, I got sucked into the story line. The characters could be real people, and all of them have faults--even the amazing Miss Melly (or Mrs. Wilkes). I loved reading about the character interactions. To top it off, the story is clean. Sex is mentioned, but there are no real details.
What I Hate: *SPOILER!!!* My hatred focuses on this: IT'S NOT A LOVE STORY IF THERE'S NO HAPPY ENDING!!! Scarlett O'Hara's life is a circle of pain starting when she's 16 and continuing to the end of the book. She tries so hard to find happiness and protect her family, but time after time disaster falls. I know that this happens to many people, so it makes the story more true to life in many ways. I could have taken all of that; all of what she suffered, even her cynicism and dislike for other people. What I can't take is the ending. Yep. The ending made me hate the book.
Honestly, it's a book everyone should probably read, love or hate. It's one I HIGHLY recommend, even if I hate it. You know an author has done a good job when you end a book with such conflicting emotions. It made me smile. It made me cry--not just a few tears either. I BAWLED. Books can make me teary eyed, but no fictional book I've ever read has made me cry that hard!
I really respect Margaret Mitchellin as an author. She truly created a masterpiece.
I can't decide if I love or hate the book.
What I Love: The story is really compelling. I've always been a sucker for Historical Fiction, and this book fits into that category. It addresses so many social issues and puts a spin on the Confederacy that you don't normally see. I felt the plight of the southerners and was upset with the Yankees. How could Sherman do that to people? And then the North let the carpetbaggers ravage the south! Yes, I got sucked into the story line. The characters could be real people, and all of them have faults--even the amazing Miss Melly (or Mrs. Wilkes). I loved reading about the character interactions. To top it off, the story is clean. Sex is mentioned, but there are no real details.
What I Hate: *SPOILER!!!* My hatred focuses on this: IT'S NOT A LOVE STORY IF THERE'S NO HAPPY ENDING!!! Scarlett O'Hara's life is a circle of pain starting when she's 16 and continuing to the end of the book. She tries so hard to find happiness and protect her family, but time after time disaster falls. I know that this happens to many people, so it makes the story more true to life in many ways. I could have taken all of that; all of what she suffered, even her cynicism and dislike for other people. What I can't take is the ending. Yep. The ending made me hate the book.
Honestly, it's a book everyone should probably read, love or hate. It's one I HIGHLY recommend, even if I hate it. You know an author has done a good job when you end a book with such conflicting emotions. It made me smile. It made me cry--not just a few tears either. I BAWLED. Books can make me teary eyed, but no fictional book I've ever read has made me cry that hard!
I really respect Margaret Mitchellin as an author. She truly created a masterpiece.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
BBC # 14, Rebecca
Maybe I have a thing for books where love comes hard, but I loved Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier. Rebecca has been compared to Jane Eyre and there is good reason for the comparison, but it is NOT Jane Eyre. They are definitely 2 different books with 2 different story lines.
When I read the title I expected the heroine of the story to be named Rebecca, but this is not the case. Rebecca is the first wife of Maxim de Winter, a rich Englishman who runs an estate called Manderly. After Rebecca's death, Maxim flees to southern France in an attempt to escape. There he meets the narrator who after a brief courtship becomes his second wife. The only name she is referred to in the book as is Mrs. de Winter.
The new Mrs. de Winter soon finds that Rebecca, though dead, still controls much of life at Manderly. Mrs. Danvers runs the house and despises the heroine because she is NOT Rebecca and because she came to take Rebecca's place.
Based on the responses of the people in the area and the lack of response from Maxim, our heroine soon feels that Maxim is deeply in love with Rebecca and she's simply a replacement--a failed replacement at that.
The story follows our heroine as she tries to figure out her place in Manderly and win Maxim's aproval and love.
With a surprising twist near the end, Rebecca is, in my opinion, a literary masterpiece. It is probably my favorite book I've read so far on the BBC list.
When I read the title I expected the heroine of the story to be named Rebecca, but this is not the case. Rebecca is the first wife of Maxim de Winter, a rich Englishman who runs an estate called Manderly. After Rebecca's death, Maxim flees to southern France in an attempt to escape. There he meets the narrator who after a brief courtship becomes his second wife. The only name she is referred to in the book as is Mrs. de Winter.
The new Mrs. de Winter soon finds that Rebecca, though dead, still controls much of life at Manderly. Mrs. Danvers runs the house and despises the heroine because she is NOT Rebecca and because she came to take Rebecca's place.
Based on the responses of the people in the area and the lack of response from Maxim, our heroine soon feels that Maxim is deeply in love with Rebecca and she's simply a replacement--a failed replacement at that.
The story follows our heroine as she tries to figure out her place in Manderly and win Maxim's aproval and love.
With a surprising twist near the end, Rebecca is, in my opinion, a literary masterpiece. It is probably my favorite book I've read so far on the BBC list.
BBC # 13, Birdsong
I have to admit I DID NOT finish this book. Birdsong by Sebastian Faulks is a very emotional, moving book--but it has ridiculous amounts of sex. I'm not talking about sex being mentioned. I'm talking about details. I tried skipping those chunks, but then I'd miss part of the story. And there's no point in even reading a book I have to skip part of the story line for. I got about half way through before I gave up.
If you don't have a problem reading sex pieces, you'll probably really enjoy this book. The story is moving. The people's emotions are very real. It delves into love and war, loss and hope. I think it's a good book--if you could take out the sex scenes. As is, I can't personally recommend it, but like I said, if you don't have a problem with reading about sex, you'd probably enjoy the book.
If you don't have a problem reading sex pieces, you'll probably really enjoy this book. The story is moving. The people's emotions are very real. It delves into love and war, loss and hope. I think it's a good book--if you could take out the sex scenes. As is, I can't personally recommend it, but like I said, if you don't have a problem with reading about sex, you'd probably enjoy the book.
BBC # 48, Far From the Madding Crowd
I actually finished this book weeks ago. I thought I'd already blogged about it, but I guess not. Here it goes.
Far From the Madding Crowd by Thomas Hardy is a really enjoyable book. You follow Gabriel Oaks, a shepherd, and his love for Bathsheba Everdene. From the beginning Gabriel's quest to win Bathsheba's love doesn't turn out the way he wants or expects.
The book focuses on human folly and social issues of the time. There are twists of love and hate, betrayal and loyalty, lies and honesty, etc. Bathsheba ends up being the only female farmer in the area, accidentally winning a farmers love, falling in love with another man, has disaster ruin her life before finally finding happiness. Gabriel loses everything and has to start fresh and work for the woman who rejected him, before he finds his peace.
At the beginning of the book, I wasn't sure how much I'd like it, but by the end, I could barely put it down. Thomas Hardy did a good job creating his characters and molding their interactions. He teaches life lessons without it seeming preachy. He shapes the "villian" of the story into a man who can convince everyone but the hero--Gabriel--that he is good and wonderful.
While it delves into darker issues, it stays appropriate for all ages. Young Adults may not understand all of the social issues, but I wouldn't have a problem with my own children (theoretical children) reading this book. I highly recommend this book.
Far From the Madding Crowd by Thomas Hardy is a really enjoyable book. You follow Gabriel Oaks, a shepherd, and his love for Bathsheba Everdene. From the beginning Gabriel's quest to win Bathsheba's love doesn't turn out the way he wants or expects.
The book focuses on human folly and social issues of the time. There are twists of love and hate, betrayal and loyalty, lies and honesty, etc. Bathsheba ends up being the only female farmer in the area, accidentally winning a farmers love, falling in love with another man, has disaster ruin her life before finally finding happiness. Gabriel loses everything and has to start fresh and work for the woman who rejected him, before he finds his peace.
At the beginning of the book, I wasn't sure how much I'd like it, but by the end, I could barely put it down. Thomas Hardy did a good job creating his characters and molding their interactions. He teaches life lessons without it seeming preachy. He shapes the "villian" of the story into a man who can convince everyone but the hero--Gabriel--that he is good and wonderful.
While it delves into darker issues, it stays appropriate for all ages. Young Adults may not understand all of the social issues, but I wouldn't have a problem with my own children (theoretical children) reading this book. I highly recommend this book.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
BBC #49, Goodnight Mister Tom
Goodnight Mister Tom by Michelle Magorian is a wonderful book. I LOVED it. I read it before--I was in 8th or 9th grade. My teacher had it on her shelf and I borrowed it from her. At the time I also read Back Home, written by the same author. They were both written about WWII and children who were sent as evacuees from the big cities. I remember enjoying both of them immensely.
The second read through was as good as the first, though I'm sure I caught more of the meaning. The book starts with Mr. Tom Oakley hearing knocks on the door. He opens it to find a woman with a bunch of children. The woman was someone from the war department or something like that. War with Germany was imminent. Children from the big cities (particularly London) were being evacuated to the country side so when the bombing started, the children would be safe. Families in the country were to take in as many of the children as they could. Mr. Oakley was no exception, though he was an older man who lived alone. He had to take in a child. The boy was pretty much thrust onto him.
The first thing Mr. Tom noticed was a bruise on the boy (Will/Willie/William--he get's called all of them in the book). Mr. Tom soon discovers the Willie had been beaten by his mother. His mother even sent a belt with a hefty buckle with him so that whoever took him in could continue. Gentle hearted Mr. Tom couldn't and wouldn't do that.
Will learns to trust Mr. Tom. He makes friends and breaks out of his shell. He learns that he is good, that he can be accepted and loved. Everything is going well until his mother sends for him saying she's sick. He goes home to find his mother is the same as she was--and she has a baby (the mother is single). She keeps tape on the baby's mouth so it can't cry. Will tries to help it and is beat. His mother calls him a liar when he says he made friends.
Back in the town, Mr Tom doesn't hear anything from Will. None of his friends have heard anything either. Even though he knows he has no real right, Mr. Tom packs up and heads to London to find Will.
I'm stopping the summary there because I don't want to spoil the book and really, you can get most of what I wrote before on the back cover of the book.
Good Night Mr. Tom is an incredibly tender book. It made me almost cry. I would recommend it for adults and children alike. Another 3 thumbs up.
The second read through was as good as the first, though I'm sure I caught more of the meaning. The book starts with Mr. Tom Oakley hearing knocks on the door. He opens it to find a woman with a bunch of children. The woman was someone from the war department or something like that. War with Germany was imminent. Children from the big cities (particularly London) were being evacuated to the country side so when the bombing started, the children would be safe. Families in the country were to take in as many of the children as they could. Mr. Oakley was no exception, though he was an older man who lived alone. He had to take in a child. The boy was pretty much thrust onto him.
The first thing Mr. Tom noticed was a bruise on the boy (Will/Willie/William--he get's called all of them in the book). Mr. Tom soon discovers the Willie had been beaten by his mother. His mother even sent a belt with a hefty buckle with him so that whoever took him in could continue. Gentle hearted Mr. Tom couldn't and wouldn't do that.
Will learns to trust Mr. Tom. He makes friends and breaks out of his shell. He learns that he is good, that he can be accepted and loved. Everything is going well until his mother sends for him saying she's sick. He goes home to find his mother is the same as she was--and she has a baby (the mother is single). She keeps tape on the baby's mouth so it can't cry. Will tries to help it and is beat. His mother calls him a liar when he says he made friends.
Back in the town, Mr Tom doesn't hear anything from Will. None of his friends have heard anything either. Even though he knows he has no real right, Mr. Tom packs up and heads to London to find Will.
I'm stopping the summary there because I don't want to spoil the book and really, you can get most of what I wrote before on the back cover of the book.
Good Night Mr. Tom is an incredibly tender book. It made me almost cry. I would recommend it for adults and children alike. Another 3 thumbs up.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
BBC #18, Little Women
One of my favorite stories is Little Women by Louisa M Alcott. I read it when I was in elementary school. I've watched the movie at least half a dozen times. I love it.
Which is why I was surprised when I finished the book the other day and discovered it didn't end where I thought it ended. Turns out the first book Ms. Alcott published was entitled Little Women and it was the FIRST half of a story. The second half was called Good Wives and was published shortly thereafter. In 1870 (or 1871) the books were first published together. Since that time MOST companies print them together and simply call it Little Women. That's the version I read in Elementary school and the version the movie is based off of. For some reason the cheapo company I bought my book from only printed the first half, considering Good Wives to be another book. *Grumble Grumble*
Luckily for me I own an ipod touch and Kindle has a free version that includes BOTH books. I read the second half on my ipod.
Like I said, I love this story. I was completely wrapped up in it. The day I got the second half I stayed up until almost 2 in the morning reading, even though I had work in the morning. My husband made fun of me because I started talking like the characters. I told him a bath sounded simply splendid. I don't normally say splendid.
My childhood memories of the second half of the book did not compare with what it actually entails. Maybe it's because I'm actually in that part of life now--newly married and in my early 20's. Maybe I just connect to it more. It's the real love story part of the book!
It's also really tragic. (SPOILER!!!). When Beth and Jo talked about how she was dying, I cried. Maybe it's because I just watched someone close to me die, but the emotions shared at that part of the book did a number on me. When she died I cried again. If it weren't for the chapters about Amy in the middle, I think I would have cried straight through that part.
This book is well written. It's a classic for a reason. I see myself reading it to my daughters in the future. I give it 3 thumbs up.
Which is why I was surprised when I finished the book the other day and discovered it didn't end where I thought it ended. Turns out the first book Ms. Alcott published was entitled Little Women and it was the FIRST half of a story. The second half was called Good Wives and was published shortly thereafter. In 1870 (or 1871) the books were first published together. Since that time MOST companies print them together and simply call it Little Women. That's the version I read in Elementary school and the version the movie is based off of. For some reason the cheapo company I bought my book from only printed the first half, considering Good Wives to be another book. *Grumble Grumble*
Luckily for me I own an ipod touch and Kindle has a free version that includes BOTH books. I read the second half on my ipod.
Like I said, I love this story. I was completely wrapped up in it. The day I got the second half I stayed up until almost 2 in the morning reading, even though I had work in the morning. My husband made fun of me because I started talking like the characters. I told him a bath sounded simply splendid. I don't normally say splendid.
My childhood memories of the second half of the book did not compare with what it actually entails. Maybe it's because I'm actually in that part of life now--newly married and in my early 20's. Maybe I just connect to it more. It's the real love story part of the book!
It's also really tragic. (SPOILER!!!). When Beth and Jo talked about how she was dying, I cried. Maybe it's because I just watched someone close to me die, but the emotions shared at that part of the book did a number on me. When she died I cried again. If it weren't for the chapters about Amy in the middle, I think I would have cried straight through that part.
This book is well written. It's a classic for a reason. I see myself reading it to my daughters in the future. I give it 3 thumbs up.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
BBC #3, His Dark Materials, book 3, The Amber Spyglass
*AGAIN, IF YOU HAVEN'T READ BOOK 2, THIS REVIEW WILL BE A SPOILER*
And even if you have read book 2, this will contain spoilers for book 3.
Controversy first!
I'm not sure if Philip Pullman meant this series to be a opposing side to Narnia or not, but it sure does relate a negative opinion of churches and God. Near the end, Mary Malone explains how she found out there was no God. God, the Authority, dies (notably Lyra and Will were actually trying to help him, not kill him). The Angel next to God is killed by Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter. The Authority had locked all the dead spirits in a state of perpetual misery, regardless of how they had lived their lives. The church is pretty much destroyed in Lyra's world. Seems pretty anti-religious to me.
However, since my beliefs are very different than the beliefs which the main characters find so abominable, it's really easy for me to look past that part. Mary Malone said "I came to believe that good and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are." She was using this as a reason not to believe in God or the church, but that logic doesn't work for me. I believe judging people based alone on what we feel is good and evil is not our job, that there is a layer deeper which we can't see. Mrs. Coulter is a good example of this. All you see from her in the first 2 books is hate and cruelty in the name of the church. Then she turns around and gives her life to save her daughter and the world. The under layer had the potential for her to do good things, as well as evil.
I feel like the flaw to the argument against the church is that Pullman depicts the church as black and a world without the church as white. In reality, it's much like Mary's statement. Good and evil are names for what actions the people in the church do, not what the church itself is.
If you're religious and are worried about what your kids will do with the information they get in these books, discuss it with them. Helps to have read it yourself first though. I wouldn't forbid it, but hey, that's my opinion. You can raise your children however you want.
Again, once we move past the controversy you find a very delightful book. I found the beginning of this one to be a little slower than the beginning of the other two, but it was still good. Lyra and Will's adventures through the worlds--including the world of the dead and the world of the mulefa-- is intriguing. I did think the part just before the ending was almost anti-climatic. The whole story based itself on Lyra and Will saving the day: the knife destroying the Authority etc. Lyra and Will tried to SAVE the Authority. He died because he was old. It was Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter who destroyed the Metatron. And all Will and Lyra had to do to "save" the world in the end was kiss and then give each other up. Yeah, the giving each other up was hard. They loved each other. But after all the adventures they went through, it wasn't as BIG as I was expecting.
I do have to admit when they gave each other up, I almost cried. So it was a tear jerker. The books make you come to love Lyra and Will and see their love for each other. I enjoyed that part of the ending, even if it was sad. I also think that since the book explained a little bit more about what happened to Lyra when she went home, it should have done the same with Will. But not the worst.
I really recommend this book. It makes you think about beliefs while wrapping you into a grand adventure with two incredible kids. His Dark Materials is a good read.
And even if you have read book 2, this will contain spoilers for book 3.
Controversy first!
I'm not sure if Philip Pullman meant this series to be a opposing side to Narnia or not, but it sure does relate a negative opinion of churches and God. Near the end, Mary Malone explains how she found out there was no God. God, the Authority, dies (notably Lyra and Will were actually trying to help him, not kill him). The Angel next to God is killed by Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter. The Authority had locked all the dead spirits in a state of perpetual misery, regardless of how they had lived their lives. The church is pretty much destroyed in Lyra's world. Seems pretty anti-religious to me.
However, since my beliefs are very different than the beliefs which the main characters find so abominable, it's really easy for me to look past that part. Mary Malone said "I came to believe that good and evil are names for what people do, not for what they are." She was using this as a reason not to believe in God or the church, but that logic doesn't work for me. I believe judging people based alone on what we feel is good and evil is not our job, that there is a layer deeper which we can't see. Mrs. Coulter is a good example of this. All you see from her in the first 2 books is hate and cruelty in the name of the church. Then she turns around and gives her life to save her daughter and the world. The under layer had the potential for her to do good things, as well as evil.
I feel like the flaw to the argument against the church is that Pullman depicts the church as black and a world without the church as white. In reality, it's much like Mary's statement. Good and evil are names for what actions the people in the church do, not what the church itself is.
If you're religious and are worried about what your kids will do with the information they get in these books, discuss it with them. Helps to have read it yourself first though. I wouldn't forbid it, but hey, that's my opinion. You can raise your children however you want.
Again, once we move past the controversy you find a very delightful book. I found the beginning of this one to be a little slower than the beginning of the other two, but it was still good. Lyra and Will's adventures through the worlds--including the world of the dead and the world of the mulefa-- is intriguing. I did think the part just before the ending was almost anti-climatic. The whole story based itself on Lyra and Will saving the day: the knife destroying the Authority etc. Lyra and Will tried to SAVE the Authority. He died because he was old. It was Lord Asriel and Mrs. Coulter who destroyed the Metatron. And all Will and Lyra had to do to "save" the world in the end was kiss and then give each other up. Yeah, the giving each other up was hard. They loved each other. But after all the adventures they went through, it wasn't as BIG as I was expecting.
I do have to admit when they gave each other up, I almost cried. So it was a tear jerker. The books make you come to love Lyra and Will and see their love for each other. I enjoyed that part of the ending, even if it was sad. I also think that since the book explained a little bit more about what happened to Lyra when she went home, it should have done the same with Will. But not the worst.
I really recommend this book. It makes you think about beliefs while wrapping you into a grand adventure with two incredible kids. His Dark Materials is a good read.
Monday, January 17, 2011
BBC #3, His Dark Materials, book 2, The Subtle Knife
***IF YOU HAVEN'T READ BOOK 1, THIS REVIEW WILL BE A MAJOR SPOILER!***
Even if you've read book 1, this review will contain some information from book 2, so spoiler alert there as well. :)
After reading this book I discovered something. My last post is accurate for that book...maybe...but doesn't seem accurate for the entire series. Why do I say that?
CONTROVERSY TIME!!!
In The Subtle Knife, there are 2 main sides with Lyra and Will (the newest addition to the main character list) not quite on either of them, but leaning more to one. Side one: Leader is Mrs. Coulter, Lyra's mother. She represents the church. She's created a zombie army by cutting out people's souls and is out to destroy Dust (or Shadow Particles) and "save" Lyra. Side two: Leader is Lord Asriel, Lyra's father. He is out to destroy not just the church, but the Authority, God. Creatures, people, and angels (the ones fallen from heaven) are traveling from many worlds to help him in his quest.
Obviously in the book Mrs. Coulter is the bad guy. She's taken people's souls from them for example. She is so charismatic that the specters, which suck out the souls of adults don't bother her. Instead, they obey her every whim.
On the other side, you have some of the witches who decide they will follow Lord Asriel and destroy the church. Jopari (aka Dr. Grumman) is on Lord Asriel's side. He goes as far as trying to convince Will (who is actually his son) to abandon Lyra to help Lord Asriel.
Based on this book and the one previous I have to say there is some merit to the idea he wrote this book as an anti-religious text. The "good guys" are trying to destroy not only the church, but God. Before I make my final opinion on the matter, however, I will have to read the next book.
Again, moving past the controversy, the book is well written. I could barely put it down. I finished it the same day I started (I had lots of free time at work!).
The whole "what time is it, what's going on with the church, etc" issues, including the terminology problem, gets resolved before the book even begins. The first page says that Lyra's world is a world much like ours, but different. Will's world is ours. Even Will and Lyra have issues when trying to explain the same thing. So, the fact everything was ALMOST the same but slightly different now makes sense. I can even live with the new words he put out there.
Will and Lyra travel between 2 worlds, earth as we know it, and the one with the specters. Then there's also travel back into Lyra's world (though not by Lyra or Will). According to the book, there are MILLIONS of worlds out there. Everything seems to be happening in the specter world for the time being.
Overall, I think I'd still recommend the books, regardless of the controversy.
Even if you've read book 1, this review will contain some information from book 2, so spoiler alert there as well. :)
After reading this book I discovered something. My last post is accurate for that book...maybe...but doesn't seem accurate for the entire series. Why do I say that?
CONTROVERSY TIME!!!
In The Subtle Knife, there are 2 main sides with Lyra and Will (the newest addition to the main character list) not quite on either of them, but leaning more to one. Side one: Leader is Mrs. Coulter, Lyra's mother. She represents the church. She's created a zombie army by cutting out people's souls and is out to destroy Dust (or Shadow Particles) and "save" Lyra. Side two: Leader is Lord Asriel, Lyra's father. He is out to destroy not just the church, but the Authority, God. Creatures, people, and angels (the ones fallen from heaven) are traveling from many worlds to help him in his quest.
Obviously in the book Mrs. Coulter is the bad guy. She's taken people's souls from them for example. She is so charismatic that the specters, which suck out the souls of adults don't bother her. Instead, they obey her every whim.
On the other side, you have some of the witches who decide they will follow Lord Asriel and destroy the church. Jopari (aka Dr. Grumman) is on Lord Asriel's side. He goes as far as trying to convince Will (who is actually his son) to abandon Lyra to help Lord Asriel.
Based on this book and the one previous I have to say there is some merit to the idea he wrote this book as an anti-religious text. The "good guys" are trying to destroy not only the church, but God. Before I make my final opinion on the matter, however, I will have to read the next book.
Again, moving past the controversy, the book is well written. I could barely put it down. I finished it the same day I started (I had lots of free time at work!).
The whole "what time is it, what's going on with the church, etc" issues, including the terminology problem, gets resolved before the book even begins. The first page says that Lyra's world is a world much like ours, but different. Will's world is ours. Even Will and Lyra have issues when trying to explain the same thing. So, the fact everything was ALMOST the same but slightly different now makes sense. I can even live with the new words he put out there.
Will and Lyra travel between 2 worlds, earth as we know it, and the one with the specters. Then there's also travel back into Lyra's world (though not by Lyra or Will). According to the book, there are MILLIONS of worlds out there. Everything seems to be happening in the specter world for the time being.
Overall, I think I'd still recommend the books, regardless of the controversy.
Friday, January 14, 2011
BBC #3: His Dark Materials, book 1, The Golden Compass
Yesterday after posting I began ransacking my apartment to try and find one of the books on the list to start reading. I wanted to begin right away! It didn't take me very long to stumble across The Golden Compass.
The Golden Compass is part of a triology by Philip Pullman called His Dark Materials. I've never read any of the books but I do remember the controversy when it came out as a movie. People said it was written as an anti-religious book--an opposite to CS. Lewis's Narnia series. I never watched the movie--not because I was worried about the "hidden meaning" but because I was busy and didn't watch very movies at the time. Didn't think about it again until yesterday.
Having finished the book, I can say that I don't feel like it's an "evil" book. Sure, the bad guys are an organization in the church--sometimes even the church itself, but you can read accurate historical fictions where the same happened. The whole church system is set up different than it is in real life anyway. I still am trying to wrap my head around it. There only seems to be one church instead of lots of churches and the church runs everything in Europe--almost like it was before the reformation. Also, the church seems more of a analogy for human thought--belief systems etc. than to stand for an actual church.
The other part that might seem "evil" is the fact that the souls of all the humans are split--they have their own body and then they have their daemon--a creature that is literally connected to them. It's part of their soul. It can't be very far from them. If the daemon dies, the person will die and vice versa. Children's daemons can be any animal. An adult's daemon only has one form. They are called familiars at one point. Not really evil. Just fantasy and word choice. Oh, and there are witches. But well, Harry Potter and hundreds of other books we let our children read would also be "evil" if that's where we draw the line.
Moving beyond the controversy, I think the story line is compelling. The main character, Lyra, is likable. I won't complain that the hero is a little girl. She's young, smart, and a story teller. Everything she hears comes out of her mouth very different than when she heard it--unless she's talking to an adult. Then she'll tell the truth. Most of the time. She makes mistakes and tries to fix her mistakes. She's human--a normal little girl who does amazing things. As a kid, I probably would have wanted to be like her. Hey, in some ways I still do!
I found the beginning of the book hard to follow because of the terminology. I felt like instead of using "normal" words, Pullman had to have a new word for almost everything. Anbaric current or power is electricity. It took me a long time to figure that out. A gyptian is pretty much a gypsy. Close, but not quite the same. Countries and peoples are also used differently. I'm not sure exactly when the book is supposed to be taking place, but Zepplins and aeroships (etc) are common. Between those and the fact the "church" and government system is set up differently made my brain have a hard time focusing. Most people could probably breeze by it, but because I'm very analytical, it was hard for me. I wanted to be able to understand it all! It's only in the beginning of the book that it really bugged me anyway.
The story line makes up for it. By the middle of the book I breezed by the words and figured out what some of them meant. As the book continued I got pulled more and more into the story line. I didn't get into it as much as I do some books, but I was definitely pulled in. I was so enthralled in it I read the last 100 pages or so straight without a break.
I believe the biggest theme in the book is people fear what they don't understand. I believe the church is used as an analogy to basic human beliefs. If something doesn't fit into the belief paradigm, it must be bad or evil. Using a church makes people's beliefs contrast more with their fears. I think people have locked onto the church vs. the truth aspect in the book ignoring the greater moral: our paradigms vs. the unknown. The church, representing human paradigms, gets in the way of Lyra and others trying to find the truth behind Dust--the unknown. Only a child, someone not set into their belief pattern, could open their eyes enough to see the unknown can bring great goodness.
In real life, we can see examples throughout history and even in modern times of us doing the same. Whites held onto their paradigms of racism because of their fear of change--their fear of other races. Women weren't allowed to vote in America until the 1900's because men were afraid of what they would do in the political realm. Rock and Roll music was considered "horrible" because it was hard and loud. The bible was only in Latin until Martin Luther translated it because the church was afraid the day to day people couldn't understand it--or would understand it differently. People were afraid the affects Harry Potter would have on children because it talked about... (oh no!) witches and wizards.
So maybe using the church as the belief system was the cause of the controversy or maybe it was something else. My opinion is that the book is good, wholesome entertainment. If your worried about it, read it with your child. Or read it before they do so you can discuss it with them. In no way would I forbid it though--that would kind of play into the "fear what you don't understand" theme.
End result? I enjoyed this book. I have 2 more books to finish before I finish His Dark Materials, but I expect I will enjoy them too.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
The Idea That Started It All:
The title of this post makes me thing there's going to be lots and lots of posts to follow. Luckily, that's the goal.
Today I was browsing blogs and I came across one that mentioned the difference between the BBC's original version of the list and the facebook version. I won't go into that. If you want to know, google it. Anyway, I looked up both versions for kicks and giggles.
While reading the BBC list I realized I've read a lot of the books. 36 for sure, with 3 more I think I might have read. I couldn't help thinking how cool it would be to say I've read all of them. And that was the beginning of my plan.
I don't remember most of the books on the list that I HAVE read because I read them in high school or before. This lead me to decide to re-read the one's I've read before as well as read the ones I've never read. By the time I'm done, this blog will contain posts on 100 books. There will probably be multiple posts per book, so this is going to be a long project with a long blog.
I'm not going to read the books in order, but I will let you know what number it was on the list. Some of the "books" such as The Lord of the Rings have more than one book in them, so they will have several posts about them before I'm done. But I will get through them all. One at a time until the list is completely marked off.
100 books in WAY more than 100 days, beginning today.
Today I was browsing blogs and I came across one that mentioned the difference between the BBC's original version of the list and the facebook version. I won't go into that. If you want to know, google it. Anyway, I looked up both versions for kicks and giggles.
While reading the BBC list I realized I've read a lot of the books. 36 for sure, with 3 more I think I might have read. I couldn't help thinking how cool it would be to say I've read all of them. And that was the beginning of my plan.
I don't remember most of the books on the list that I HAVE read because I read them in high school or before. This lead me to decide to re-read the one's I've read before as well as read the ones I've never read. By the time I'm done, this blog will contain posts on 100 books. There will probably be multiple posts per book, so this is going to be a long project with a long blog.
I'm not going to read the books in order, but I will let you know what number it was on the list. Some of the "books" such as The Lord of the Rings have more than one book in them, so they will have several posts about them before I'm done. But I will get through them all. One at a time until the list is completely marked off.
100 books in WAY more than 100 days, beginning today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)