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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)