Ah, the first Sherlock novel. The one that introduced us to the world's greatest detective. The one he seemingly hands over to another narrator for a Ah, the first Sherlock novel. The one that introduced us to the world's greatest detective. The one he seemingly hands over to another narrator for a third of the book…
Do you want to hear Doyle rant about Mormons for a good third of the book? If that is the case, you my dear friend are in luck! For everyone else, the mystery of this book is fairly interesting, but the long section where we break away from our leads is more of a sad story with more than a touch of the author standing up and ranting.
The most entertaining aspect about the novel for me was, as someone who has read many of the stories prior to the novel, is how the characters changed after the initial book. I always think of Watson as something of the man of action, and here he talks about being lazy and being in such poor health that he feels it unlikely that he will fully recover. Seems quite a different Watson from the one most people I think generally know.
Overall I found the book entertaining, but I think Doyle greatly improved as he went on. Particularly in terms of his short stories plotting. 3/5 stars...more
“Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything“Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else.”
So begins Charles Dickens’ Hard Times. He creates a thesis for a character who believes that facts and a rationalism philosophy can conquer all, and for the next 280 pages will break down this philosophy.
It is well known that Dickens is a rather emotional writer. He wants to make people feel, so such a philosophy as the above must have been quite irritating to him. Imagine if you will that Dickens’ point in this novel is a watermelon. I know this sound peculiar, but bear with me. How to make sure that all his readers understand his point?
By doing the following:
[image]
This is the most blunt and blatant book imaginable. I’m not faulting him for that. Dickens wanted to make sure his readers got his point, and he was the most popular author amongst general readers, including many lesser educated. He wanted to make sure they got it, and by God, he would do his best to make sure they did. That said, the lack of subtlety hurt it from a modern perspective... still, he cannot really be faulted for that.
I’ve now read four Dickens books and of the four this is my least favorite. It doesn’t have the emotional impact of A Tale of Two Cities, the good humor of Oliver Twist or the perfect delivery of his moral that A Christmas Carol has. That’s not to say this is a bad book, it was quite a comfortable read with moments of the genius I’ve come to expect from him, it just didn’t quite match up to what I’ve enjoyed in the past. I’ve noticed that I tend to prefer Dickens when he’s in a more comedic mode, and while there is humor here, it is overall a much more serious book. At one point, prior to starting to read Dickens, I almost chose this to be my first one on account of it being so short compared to his other books. I'm glad I didn't as I'm not sure I would have felt the need to immediately jump to another of his works. Still, I’m glad I read it and will be continuing making my way through his works. 3/5 stars....more
"In an isolated castle deep in the Austrian forest, teenaged Laura leads a solitary life with only her father, attendant and tutor for company. Until "In an isolated castle deep in the Austrian forest, teenaged Laura leads a solitary life with only her father, attendant and tutor for company. Until one moonlit night, a horse-drawn carriage crashes into view, carrying an unexpected guest -- the beautiful Carmilla." - Description taken from the Pushkin Press edition of the novel.
[image]
Carmilla was published more than twenty years before Dracula. I feel like I should stress that as everyone tries to treat the good count as if he was the proper introduction to vampires (let's not even get into The Vampyre by John Polidori which is another conversation entirely).
If I'm to be completely honest, the fact that Dracula gets all the love over Carmilla is more than slightly frustrating, as in my opinion, Carmilla is actually a better vampire story and manages to pull it off in almost 1/4 the page count. That's not to discredit Dracula as I gave it five stars as well. Both are excellent stories, I just feel Carmilla is the more exciting of the two.
Carmilla is just such an interesting little tale. While Dracula had moments of homoerotic subtext, Carmilla is flat out blatant with it. Zero subtlety here, Carmilla is obviously trying to seduce our lead. Carmilla also uses a rather interesting tactic to get close to her victims which makes for and interesting tale… it's also rather fascinating that she's very much featured throughout the book whereas Dracula has very few pages in his own book.
This is such a delightful little book. One I can see myself revisiting again in the future. Well worth a read to all fans of classics and/or horror. 5/5 stars....more
Welcome back to another edition of Tim has an unpopular opinion: and this is a big one, as Tim is about to state that he frankly dislikes one of the mWelcome back to another edition of Tim has an unpopular opinion: and this is a big one, as Tim is about to state that he frankly dislikes one of the most popular books ever written.
Yes, I dislike Pride and Prejudice. I’ll be honest, the only reasons it gets two stars is because of its historic influence on literature and the fact that it made me laugh on a few occasions, all from dialogue by Mr. Bennet, who while a flawed character was a joy to read. I dare say it would have been a 5 star read had it just been about him sitting in his library, tired of his relations and trying to get out of the story by mocking all of them.
I just don’t get it. Don’t get me wrong, I understand it’s influence, and I respect the people who love it, but I was bored the entire time and don’t get the love for it.
Abridged recap of the book: let’s go to a party. Let’s visit someone’s house. Oh my, now they are visiting us! What fun! Oh no, drama and gossip. Elopement… scandalous. Oh, hooray, a visit. That visit went poorly, hopefully the next will be better. Huzzah, it was!
I guess if I was trying to compliment it further, I should note that it is a rare example of a “pure” character done right. Jane is the annoying “see the good in everyone” but is actually able to see ill, she just doesn’t want to. It hurts. It’s not stupidity but a form of self preservation. This is refreshing, as usually in 19th century literature their purity just shines seemingly from stupidity.
Sorry everyone, I know this is a loved classic, but all I can say is that at least I’ve crossed it off my list of ones to read. It is at this point that I must just assume that Austen is not for me (though I at least did not despise it like I did Northanger Abbey.) 2/5 stars...more
Wait one damn second… there's no singing in this book at all! Pop culture has once again lead me astray!
Jokes aside, this is Dickens's second novel (aWait one damn second… there's no singing in this book at all! Pop culture has once again lead me astray!
Jokes aside, this is Dickens's second novel (and coincidentally the second novel I've read by him) and it shows. In many ways I had the opposite reaction of what I did to A Tale of Two Cities. I loved the characters here, both main and side, but found the plot a bit of a mess full of coincidences and things that can only be explained away with "well, God was looking out for them" which is an immediate downside for me. Clearly Dickens grows as an author between the two as A Tale of Two Cities is one of the most carefully plotted of books, filled with scenes that mirror earlier ones throughout. That complaint aside, I did enjoy the experience of this one more than the other book.
Oliver Twist is a book seemingly built on its characters and humor. The story of an orphan boy who things keep going to hell for could so easily turn into a misery porn sort of work, but here Dickens tells his tale with sympathy, yes, but with a wink and a smile. Many times I found myself laughing out loud. I found myself loving the side characters again, in particular Fagin (who is admittedly some of an offensive caricature at times, but a delightful villain filled with charm) the Artful Dodger (who is not in the book near enough), Mr. Bumble and Nancy. The book occasionally seemed to loose its way and go off on multiple chapter tangents (like when the two detectives show up to the house) but all of them were delightful vignettes.
Dickens also manages to moralize in this one without coming off as preaching. His descriptions of the work houses and young Oliver's life are terrible, but because of his humor he gets his point across without ever feeling too bleak (yet somehow still capturing the seriousness of the events). It's a fine balancing act performed throughout the novel, and one I can't help but applaud.
While I recognize this is likely not Dickens strongest work, it is an extremely fun novel and one I would highly recommend. I'm giving it the same rating as the other book of his I've read, but with the notation that I find this a far more enjoyable book. 4/5 stars...more
Alright, I've mentioned before that I majored in English in college. If you've been following my reviews you'll notice that I've been knocking off a lAlright, I've mentioned before that I majored in English in college. If you've been following my reviews you'll notice that I've been knocking off a lot of classics that I missed out on in that time. Now here it is, my big dark secret… I've never read a proper Dickens novel. Prior to this I've only read some of his short stories and A Christmas Carol.
Well, it's been corrected! I've finally read a Dickens novel! Huzzah! Hooray! I went with the one it seems like… well, everyone has read.
Okay, so yes, I went with his most commonly read book, and yes I chose it entirely because it was his most commonly read book. I confess though, other than that it took place during the French revolution and those most famous and often quoted opening and closing lines, I knew very little about the book. Seems like the perfect introduction to Dickens proper, right?
Well, yes and no. Let me start by saying that yes, I did greatly enjoy this book. I liked it very much and was impressed at how intricately plotted it was. Scenes that I genuinely thought might have been comedic padding actually turned out important. Little details mentioned early on are used in interesting ways throughout. There are some genuinely beautiful, almost reflecting passages of the book where a scene early on is somewhat repeated with characters changed. There is a lot I loved about this book and I think my rating reflects that.
Here's the thing… my two favorite aspects of the book? The moments of humor and the interesting side characters. I'll be honest here, I didn't really care much about Charles Darnay or Lucie. They were frankly bland and uninteresting. Charles had the charisma of a board of wood and Lucie is so overly sweet that I feared diabetic issues if there were many chapters from her point of view. Dr. Manette was an interesting character because Dickens gave him more of a psychological depth to him… but really, the characters I liked reading about? The humorous messenger, grave robber and occasional bodyguard Jerry Crutcher, the man of business Jarvis Lorry, the clever and snide Sydney Carton and the sinister Madame Defarge. The side characters were all interesting, I loved seeing these quirky and interesting people come and go.
In other words, from what I gather, the thing I liked about this book the most (humor and the interesting side characters) are the aspects that show up more prominently in Dickens's other works.
So, apparently I picked wrong.
That said, this was a lovely and wonderful read. The writing was beautiful, I enjoyed my entire time with it and it will almost certainly not be my last Dickens novel… though it is a relief to finally cross him off my list of authors I'm embarrassed to say I had not read. 4/5 stars....more
I've just finished reading H.G. Well's "The Island of Doctor Moreau" and presently I shall begin my review.
This is one of those books that I honestly I've just finished reading H.G. Well's "The Island of Doctor Moreau" and presently I shall begin my review.
This is one of those books that I honestly figured I was guaranteed to love. I mean, let's combine early science fiction and horror (always fun), a classic author whose work I have enjoyed in the past (The Invisible Man is a gem of a read) and I remember seeing the movie from the 1930s when I was younger and I loved it. What's not to love? Sadly I can presently answer that question.
The answer: damn near everything. Wells creates a horrific situation and tells it in the most boring way imaginable. It isn't exciting, which it obviously wants to be. It isn't particularly scary. The characters are not memorable. I found myself growing increasingly bored. In fact, presently there is nothing about the book that I can honestly say I liked. It's one of those rare books where the film is better (and if you're familiar with that god awful adaptation staring Marlon Brando and Val Kilmer… I'd honestly put the book and that film on the same level).
It's interesting to me that this book was published the year before Dracula. In many ways it feels like a more modern novel, what with it's expounding on scientific theories and the more "action" oriented plot (though the action is very boring), but when I consider the two presently, Dracula succeeded in every way this book fails. It was thought provoking, scary and gripped me from start to finish. This book is only around 130 pages and it felt like a chore.
In closing: I debated on my rating. Part of me felt like I had to give it two out of five stars because of how influential it is and its classic status… but I decided against that. I've stated before that my ratings are my own and I do not let others influence them. I can appreciate the historic significance of something without liking it (for example The Great Gatsby or Northanger Abby) and I can't in good conscience give this book even an "okay" rating. I frankly hated it. Thus I shall presently give it the dreaded 1/5 stars.
Oh, did you find my use of the word "presently" throughout the review annoying? Then I highly suggest that you do not read this book. My final complaint: that damn word is used so many times in this book. On one occasion it was used three times in two pages. Even though I was reading a physical copy, I pulled up Project Gutenberg and did a search for it. It's used 49 times and I remind you it's only about 130 pages long. My only suggestion is to turn it into a drinking game, as that will at least help you forget that you're reading the book....more
Over the years I've somewhat fallen out of reading classics, which is a damn shame as I typically enjoy the process of reading them even if I don't enOver the years I've somewhat fallen out of reading classics, which is a damn shame as I typically enjoy the process of reading them even if I don't end up liking the book. In an effort to kick-start the process of reading them again on a more regular basis, I've decided to go with one I should have crossed off my list decades ago given my love of horror.
Dracula has been portrayed in so many different ways from all the different forms of media. He's been suave, sexy, violent, heroic, demonic… he's even been cute and cuddly.
[image] (Picture of my actual copy of the book along with one of my daughter's plushies)
So, it was an interesting experience, going back and seeing Stoker's original intent. So what was he?
I think he could best be described as an ever present entity who is only seen for around 30 pages or so. He has such little "screen time" for a title character and yet he's felt in every scene. He's a predator, something lurking in the shadows the entire time and the reader is just watching as those around him slowly piece together what he's doing.
I can only imagine that when this originally came out in 1897 that it caused a stir. While slow paced, it's frequently disturbing even by today's standards, particularly some of the scenes early on in Dracula's castle and some later when our heroes are staking out (pun intended) a graveyard. (view spoiler)[Also, yeah, Dracula's brides totally eat a baby... at least that is strongly implied. (hide spoiler)]
I confess, I'm not personally a big fan of epistolary novels. I majored in English and have read quite a few, but it's not a style that usually appeals to me. As silly as this may sound, I find I like it most in where it incorporates modern technology, such as chat logs or texts as it creates a multi-media aspect through current means of communication… as such I actually love what Stoker did. He did 1890s equivalent, as there are diary entries, telegraphs, newspaper articles and even transcriptions of phonograph recordings. In fact, one of the most fascinating aspects of the novel to me was how prominent then current technology was, with descriptions of light-bulbs, recordings, blood transfusions and rapid transit through trains all aiding our heroes. This is in many ways a book about science conquering the dark and superstitions (though as Van Helsing is quick to note, sometimes superstitions have their reasoning and should be taken into account with science). It's a rather fascinating look at the topic.
My biggest surprise while reading (other than some of the frightening content), the thing that I will no doubt take away with some awe is that the book contains a cowboy. Yes, a cowboy. He's not a joke character, he actually serves a purpose… but there's a random cowboy in the vampire hunt. I recently while looking this up on the internet (to find out if anyone was a shocked by said cowboy as me and WHY DIDN'T THEY TELL ME) found this gem and will close my review with it:
"He was not the Model Boy of the village. He knew the model boy very well though--and loathed him."
"No, his mind is not for rent To any god or govern"He was not the Model Boy of the village. He knew the model boy very well though--and loathed him."
"No, his mind is not for rent To any god or government. Always hopeful, yet discontent He knows changes aren’t permanent – But change is"
[image]
Well, what is there to say about this one? It's one of those novels that is so prominent in pop culture that even if you have not read it you likely know scenes from it (Tom convincing others to paint a fence has been recreated and parodied how many times?). It’s a book that modern readers know going into it pretty much exactly what they're getting. As such I was very unsurprised that I liked it.
More surprising is that I actually hadn't read it already. I knew many people who were assigned this in classes and indeed I was assigned a Twain novel back in Highschool… but it was Huckleberry Finn, not this one (which was actually one of three novels I remember actually really liking of my assigned reading).
Now I must say, there is something about this one I did not expect. Many reviewers who read this later in life say that they wished they would have read it when they were a kid as they think they would have liked it more. I will be the voice against this. While the book was obviously intended for a younger audience and indeed can be read by them with possible great delight, I'm glad I read it in my thirties rather than pre-teen years. Why? Because Mark Twain is a cynical curmudgeon and I would not have appreciated that anywhere near as much in my younger days. The best parts of this book are not Tom and Huck's antics, they are the scenes where Twain just describes things in his conversational smartass way.
Some of my favorite examples:
"The congregation being fully assembled, now, the bell rang once more, to warn laggards and stragglers, and then a solemn hush fell upon the church which was only broken by the tittering and whispering of the choir in the gallery. The choir always tittered and whispered all through service. There was once a church choir that was not ill-bred, but I have forgotten where it was, now. It was a great many years ago, and I can scarcely remember anything about it, but I think it was in some foreign country."
Or take for example another great moment after Tom recovers from the measles:
"During two long weeks Tom lay a prisoner, dead to the world and its happenings. He was very ill, he was interested in nothing. When he got upon his feet at last and moved feebly downtown, a melancholy change had come over everything and every creature. There had been a “revival,” and everybody had “got religion,” not only the adults, but even the boys and girls. Tom went about, hoping against hope for the sight of one blessed sinful face, but disappointment crossed him everywhere. He found Joe Harper studying a Testament, and turned sadly away from the depressing spectacle. He sought Ben Rogers, and found him visiting the poor with a basket of tracts. He hunted up Jim Hollis, who called his attention to the precious blessing of his late measles as a warning. Every boy he encountered added another ton to his depression; and when, in desperation, he flew for refuge at last to the bosom of Huckleberry Finn and was received with a Scriptural quotation, his heart broke and he crept home and to bed realizing that he alone of all the town was lost, forever and forever."
There's such a cynical and sarcastic nature that Twain, not any of his quirky side characters of leads, is the most entertaining character of the book. Would I have appreciated this commentary as a kid? Maybe some of it, but nowhere near as much as I appreciate it now.
Overall this was a fun little classic to spend some time with. I'm glad I finally got around to reading it, and am looking forward to reading more Twain with my own cynical eyes. 4/5 stars...more
Welcome back to the newest edition of Tim has an unpopular opinion. I'll be your host today, and my, do I have a show for you.
I hate it when I don't lWelcome back to the newest edition of Tim has an unpopular opinion. I'll be your host today, and my, do I have a show for you.
I hate it when I don't like a classic. People immediately assume that you don't get it or that you need to look at it from the point of view of the readers at the time of publication. I know. I've put in my time reading classics in the past and frequently still do for fun.
Sometimes you simply just don't like a book.
Honestly, I should have loved this. I love ghost stories. I love books where you can examine the psychology of the lead. I like being able to have multiple interpretations for events. It seemed a book I was bound to love.
Yet here I am, having finished and absolutely hating it. It was dull, it was over written (and seemingly in a love/hate relationship with commas considering the extreme over use of them) and while the ambiguity was appreciated, the vagueness of the narrative was not. Half the time I felt like it was like a bad dream, using inaccurate data to come to an illogical conclusion, and rather than intriguing me, it annoyed me.
I know its well loved, but this is a case where the book is simply not for me. The psychological aspect is interesting, but the story isn't. I only finished it because it was extremely short... honestly though, I wish I had not bothered. 1/5 stars...more
“There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.” - Oscar Wilde The Picture of Dorian Gray“There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.” - Oscar Wilde The Picture of Dorian Gray
*Sits down at a chair and smiles charmingly as a painter works on his portrait.*
Welcome everyone, to my 200th review!
[image]
No, no. Enough of that. As a wise book once said, "I don't want to be at the mercy of my emotions. I want to use them, to enjoy them, and to dominate them." Be more vain, sneer a bit, no happy Kermit reactions here.
So, let us begin again. Welcome dear readers to my 200th review.
*Smirks*
[image]
Ah, yes, that's much better. _______________________
So, honestly this was a terrible book to pick for my 200th review. Not because I didn't like it, far, far from that. It's because I'm having a bit of trouble actually coming up with what to say about it. I mean, what is there to say? There is zero point in doing a plot description as even those who have not read the book could probably give a decent synopsis just because of how immensely popular it has been over the 100+ years since its publication.
I could talk about how quotable and witty it is, but it was written by Oscar Wilde, so that really goes without saying.
Should I mention the history of the novel and how it had to be edited because of the homoerotic aspects, but how even in its edited form it was still so abundant that it was used as evidence in Wilde's trial against him? Well, that is a pretty well known historic fact, so you probably knew that already.
I could give a warning about chapter 11; how it is both the most fascinating and frustrating chapter in any book I've ever read. Wilde goes on at extreme length, seemingly showing off how knowledgeable he is on several subjects, and subtly showing Dorian's descent in to hedonism in the process and ending it with the brilliant line: "There were moments when he looked on evil simply as a mode through which he could realize his conception of the beautiful."
I could do that I guess, but what would I say about that line?
Theoretically, I guess I could talk say that in context of the chapter, it is important to note that it is the closing line, and practically the exclamation point to all that came before. Prior to that we had a detailed (and I do mean detailed) description of Dorian's pursuits of art, literature, music, jewels, and embroideries (I may be forgetting some, there was a possible over abundance of details). It's monotonous, but that's kind of the point. His life has become a constant stream of entertainments and debauchery to the point where they have become uninteresting. Through his actions (and through Henry's borderline devil on your shoulder conscience suggestions) he has come to look upon these things AS a form of art. It has become his aesthetic (which is a fun play on the look of the picture changing along with his actions and philosophies). Thus, what society has deemed evil, would also be his idea of beauty. That one quote is pretty much the definitive sum up of what Dorian becomes.
I think it also represents a fear of the aesthetics replacing morality, which is something Henry voices as a positive and which Wilde seems to be conflicted about throughout the book. It's interesting to note that Wilde said that "Basil Hallward is what I think I am; Lord Henry what the world thinks me; Dorian what I would like to be in other ages, perhaps." Given that if Henry represents something of an evil conscience (and ideals of aesthetics), Basil is certainly the good one, thought ironically he is also the creator of the portrait and the only "true artist" in the book. (view spoiler)[This is made more interesting by the fact that Dorian flat out stabs Basil to death. (hide spoiler)]
*Shrug.*
But that's just theoretical. Probably shouldn't even mention it... I guess I could make a joke about how there is only one thing in the world worse than talking about this book, and that is not talking about it.
Oh! I could talk about the idea of the Mandela effect (shared false memory phenomenon) and point out that many people, myself included, were sure that the title of this book was "The Portrait of Dorian Gray," and that there was a bit of genuine shock when I discovered this was not the case (going so far as to look it up and see if it was retitled at some point)... but that would be a pointless digression and would most likely come off as padding to anyone not suffering from the same issue.
*Sigh.*
See, there's just nothing to say about this one. I guess I'll just go with a one sentence review, though I may as well not write a review at all.
Tim's review: A rare 5/5 stars.
... ... ... ... ...
"All art is quite useless." - Oscar Wilde (who I like to think may have appreciated my little joke here as well). The Picture of Dorian Gray...more
"Reader, may these plain but honest words I write brighten the long hours of your own dark night."
The Song of Kieu is often said to be the grea[image]
"Reader, may these plain but honest words I write brighten the long hours of your own dark night."
The Song of Kieu is often said to be the greatest literary achievement in the Vietnamese language. I confess, I have not read any other Vietnamese books (only American and British books set during, of course, the Vietnam war, as that is apparently the only way English speaking countries can even think of Vietnam), but even with my extremely limited knowledge of the country’s writing, I would not be surprised if this was correct. This is a beautiful book. It is melancholy, thoughtful and a work of art that surpasses many European and American classics. This epic poem focuses on Vuong Thuy Kieu, who agrees to a marriage in order to pay off her father’s debts. Instead of the life of a bride, she finds that her husband only intended to sell her at the brothel he owns.
This is an epic poem about suffering. Through the course of fifteen years in her life, she will deal with slavery, bandits, war and religion. The author Nguyễn Du thoughtfully considers how women deal with adversity and the limited means they had to escape such dilemmas. He points out repeatedly that several of the men who enter her life could have had the power to prevent these events, but through inaction, or worse, outright taking advantage of her, Kieu's life becomes worse. While there is far more to it than this, I found it fascinating to see this tackled in a book written in 1820, where the author’s sympathies are obviously with our lead. While it definitely goes to some melodramatic territory, and could be viewed as at times condescending by modern standards, I think it is a case where the author never went to far and his goal was noble.
There is some absolutely stunning language in this book, with a translation that creates wonderful imagery (something that many poem translations fail at, for me at least). The translator of this new Penguin edition is Timothy Allen, who is a poet in his own right and it shows. This is a stunning book that took me a few days to read, not because of length or complexity, but because I became immersed in the language; reading, then re-reading passages. It’s a stunning work, with clever wording throughout. I cannot say to how accurate the translation is (though based on the footnotes explaining some lines, I would say at least fairly accurate) but it certainly captures the spirit and feelings the original intended.
There’s a very Chinese feel to the writing, which makes sense given the history of Vietnam during this time. It was also apparently based on a Chinese story which Nguyễn Du reworked (a fairly common practice I’ve noticed during the time). I also discovered that the story rather interestingly can be compared to the author’s own life. Vietnam at that time was ruled by the Lê dynasty, but real power rested in the Trịnh lords in the north and the Nguyễn lords in the south. Nguyễn Du was loyal to the Lê Dynasty, but in 1802 the Nguyễn conquered all of Vietnam forming the new Nguyễn dynasty. The new emperor apparently, summoned Nguyễn Du to join the new government and, preferring to continue being alive under the Nguyễn dynasty, than remaining a loyal, but dead, follower of the Lês, he accepted. Du's situation in terms of conflicting loyalties between the previous Lê king and the then current Nguyễn emperor part fits with Kiều herself who is forced to submit to circumstances but continually longed for her first love.
All in all, this is a fascinating little classic. One I truly enjoyed on all levels. The prose is beautiful, the story interesting and the parallels to the author’s own life fascinating. I cannot recommend this enough to anyone with any interest in Asian literature or fans of classic poetry. A full 5/5 stars
And let me close on a humorous note, with my favorite line from the work.
"As the proverb puts it: in difficult times, there might be thirty-six possible plans, but the best is always run like hell."...more
I’ve come to the conclusion that the 1880s were a great decade for exciting classics. We got the introduction of such famous characters as Sherlock HoI’ve come to the conclusion that the 1880s were a great decade for exciting classics. We got the introduction of such famous characters as Sherlock Holmes (in a Study of Scarlett) and Alan Quartermain, (in King Solomon’s Mines) but also Long John Silver and young Jim Hawkins. Of the three stories I mentioned above, Treasure Island is to my mind the far most entertaining (though personally I like some of the later Sherlock stories better… but that is beside the point).
I won't bother with a plot description. You all know the story; it has been parodied, homage, and adapted into films, cartoons, television episodes, video games, radio plays and more countless times. The number of alternate takes to this story are just mind-boggling. It is an entertaining tale, and the adaptations both good and bad, are in a way about the biggest praise that can be shown for it, as it is a tale that every generation wants to put their own spin on. Personally I think the Muppets did it best.
[image]
Personally I found the most interesting thing about the novel, especially given the time period of the writing, is that the two most intimidating character both have physical disabilities. Pew is blind and Silver has only one leg… despite these aspects they both come off as strong and far more menacing than any of the other pirates presented in the book. Stevenson presents them as threatening, capable, and frankly badass pirates… and that is rather refreshing.
For the most part, I have very little to complain about on this one. While I don't find it to be a perfect book by any means, it is one I found myself smiling at constantly. My criticisms would all come off as nitpicks. It is what it is, and it is very entertaining. The only issue I would even mention is that the section titled “My Sea Adventure” was a bit too slow. It could possibly be very exciting for those with a great love of descriptions of ships and waves, but I found it a bit dull… there was also a distinct lack of Silver in it.
Now let’s go ahead and cover this; Long John Silver makes this book. Yes, he is iconic for a reason. Silver is disloyal, greedy, a constant liar and seemingly quite often devoid of human empathy (save maybe for Jim)…, he is also charismatic and constantly entertaining. He is the obvious inspiration for pretty much every charming (but amoral) buccaneer in pop culture.
In closing: this book is a classic for good reason. While some may consider it a young adult novel (and indeed it was publish initially in a publication for children) it is still a wonderful adventure and a great read. A well deserved 4/5 stars. ...more
Probably the most interesting thing I can say about this book was that it was published in 1897, the same year as Stoker’s Dracula and was initially aProbably the most interesting thing I can say about this book was that it was published in 1897, the same year as Stoker’s Dracula and was initially a much better seller. Though I think in the end, the good Count has had the last laugh given that his book can be found in nearly every bookstore and library (not to mention the countless film adaptations) whereas The Beetle is one of those books you most likely would need to special order.
I’ve had this book sitting on my shelf for years. I picked it up for a college course called “Horror and Insanity in Victorian Literature” (and yes, that class was as awesome as it sounds), but due to a snowstorm than knocked out power and made classes canceled for over a week, a book needed to be cut from the syllabus and this was the one chosen. Considering how many books I was reading at the time for classes, any loses were a relief and thus the book went forgotten on my shelf for some time.
I’ve finally corrected this, and how did I react? Was it a lost classic worthy of outsell Dracula? Did it deserve to be mostly forgotten by the public? What did I really think of it? Honestly, I have a mixed opinion.
The book is broken down into four sections, each with a different narrator telling a piece of the tale. Occasionally these stories overlap and we will see the same scene from a different point of view. Sometimes (much to my annoyance) a character will recap something we saw from a different point of view and go on at great length despite the fact that we already read this. While this aspect can be frustrating, part of me wishes it would have been played with more in depth for a more Rashomon style effect.
The problem lies in that the book uses the best section up first. The narration of Robert Holt is a shockingly disturbing read. This section creates a genuinely frightening monster and a scenario that starts off sadly realistic then goes into the genuinely eerie. I read a lot of horror novels and I was startled at how disturbing this section was given the age of the book and looked forward to seeing where it would go next.
Well it goes into a tediously boring section about love lost and plotted revenge. This section is so slow and tedious that when the supernatural starts up again, I genuinely sat there for a moment with a sense of wonder at how tonally it had felt like an entirely different book for a good portion of the novel. Seriously, most of this section could be cut as we get recaps of it in future sections and most of this goes nowhere. (view spoiler)[At one point the narrator is inventing a new type of poison, which I was sure would be how the Beetle was defeated, only for this plot point to be left behind and forgotten. (hide spoiler)] The only thing worthy of note in this section is that the narrator could be the villain of another novel, and the fact that this is seemingly ignored in the other sections is just frustrating.
The third section kicks the horror back in again and fairly successfully. This section has feels the most tonally like a classic horror novel, and is quite entertaining. While I don’t have the page counts on me, this felt like the fastest paced and also the shortest section, but set up nicely for the final.
The fourth section is a mixed bag. Aspects of horror here are quite effective (with some truly disturbing aspects hinted at, but never quite made explicit), that said it is also borderline ridiculous at times. It can be summed up with a lot of traveling and an abrupt ending… and when I say abrupt, I mean ABRUPT. Without spoiling anything I genuinely thought we were still setting up for the ending when the story was concluded (not helped by the fact that the edition I have has several essays printed in the back, thus suggesting a higher page count).
There are aspects of the book that I like. Had I not known the date of publication, I would have thought it influenced by H.P. Lovecraft given the “go mad from the revelation” aspect in some parts of the story as well as the unknowable nature of the creatures true from. I suspect that the book probably influence good old H.P. instead, but would have to do more research there. I also love the first section and had it bee a short story, it would rate as one of the underrated in horror literature.
Good aspects aside, the pace is incredibly off with some sections moving at the pace of a bullet and others unbearably slow. The horror works in the first section wonderfully, but seemingly becomes another book as it goes on until it abruptly remembers that it is a horror novel and kicks back in with some pretty good scenes. Sadly nothing captures the horror and helplessness of the first section.
Overall I sadly cannot say that I like this book. There are some truly wonderful aspects, but overall (other than the first section) it does very little for me. Recommended only for classic horror fans who have already checked out the major works. ...more
This is one of those books that is rather difficult to recommend to modern readers. Our lead hero is an elephant hunter (frowned upon nowadays) and thThis is one of those books that is rather difficult to recommend to modern readers. Our lead hero is an elephant hunter (frowned upon nowadays) and the book is more than a touch racist by modern standards. It could be legitimately argued that it was fair for its time (at least two of the natives are presented as considerably better people than our European protagonists and Quatermain also explains at one point that he doesn't use the N-word because he's met more gentlemen in Africa than England). Still, there’s something decidedly problematic about this book nowadays. That said, if the reader is willing to look at it completely as an element of its time, this is a rather entertaining adventure novel.
The plot follows Allan Quatermain, who is recruited by Sir Henry Curtis to go on an expedition to the legendary mines of Solomon. While Quatermain is motivated by the hunt for diamonds and adventure (though he is a self-proclaimed coward multiple times throughout the novel), Sir Henry is looking for his brother who went missing two years ago on a hunt for the mines. Along for the ride with them are Good, and ex-navy man who provides a good portion of the comedy throughout the novel and a native guide Umbopa who plays the part of mysterious figure throughout.
Quatermain himself is an interesting protagonist. As mentioned above, he is a self-proclaimed coward, and his narration does nothing to really dissuade the reader from seeing him that way. While he does act courageously at times and he is a quick thinker, he rarely comes up with the solutions to their problems and in terms of the physical trials, he always relies on Sir. Henry. An interesting lead, as he seems out of his element for a good portion of the novel.
The novel is quite clichéd by todays standards, but that is mostly because it invented several of them. The book has obviously inspired Indian Jones and even works like H.P. Lovecraft’s At the Mountains of Madness (and of course Alan Moore’s League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). Its influence is arguably far greater than the novel itself, but it is quite interesting to see the early prototype for some of these characters.
Legend has it that Haggard wrote the novel as a result of a five-shilling wager with his brother, he could write a novel half as good as Robert Louis Stevenson's Treasure Island. I have not read Treasure Island, so I’m probably not a good judge, but I would say he probably won. ...more
You are leaving England, Mr Cypress. There is a delightful melancholy in saying farewell to an old acquaintance, when the chances are twenty to one agYou are leaving England, Mr Cypress. There is a delightful melancholy in saying farewell to an old acquaintance, when the chances are twenty to one against ever meeting again. A smiling bumper to a sad parting, and let us all be unhappy together.
Oh, I loved this book. This is exactly what I was hoping Austen's Northanger Abbey would be. It's a consistently funny send up of just about every gothic trope and figure at the time (some of these characters are clearly stand ins for Byron and Shelly). This is a book where its characters delight in being miserable, overly melodramatic and find mysteries where perhaps there are none. The parody of the gothic tropes play off so well, for example a character hires people based on their names, because he wants only the gloomiest. Thus a butler named Raven and a steward named Crow (and he once hired a footman named Deathshead, but the man was too cheerful and had to go).
The humor is genuinely funny with several lines that not only brought a smile to my face, but genuinely had me laughing. One of the characters, Mr. Flosky, brought about a grin just about any time he had dialogue. He's a transcendental metaphysician, who seems to have a thesaurus in his head judging by his vocabulary. He talks a great deal, without actually saying very much; for in his own words "if any person living could make report of having obtained any information on any subject from Ferdinando Flosky, my transcendental reputation would be ruined for ever." That sums him up perfectly, and it is comedy gold. Much of the humor is modern enough in style that it could have been written by Terry Pratchett, rather than a book published in 1818.
Perhaps, I should note, that the book is not for everyone. Peacock makes a lot of references to then current trends and authors, which unless one has read quite a few gothics or are at least very familiar with the central figures of the movement, will probably go over the readers head. He makes no apologies for this and seem to delight in the mockery of some of the figures. That said, if you know Byron's Childe Harold's Pilgrimage, then this is a book for you.
Warning: there will be some spoilers for this 100+ year old novel. I will mark spoilers in any situations detailing any characters’ fates, but if you Warning: there will be some spoilers for this 100+ year old novel. I will mark spoilers in any situations detailing any characters’ fates, but if you want to know nothing of the plot or structure, steer clear.
As a kid I grew up watching a lot of Universal monster movies on AMC’s monsterfest (back when they actually played movies without commercials and didn’t even dream of actually making TV shows). While I can’t say that the Invisible Man was one of my favorites (I always preferred Dracula and the Wolf Man as a kid) I recognized even then that the special effects were well ahead of its time and that Claude Rains gave a solid performance. His delivery of the “reign of terror” speech is actually rather intimidating given his easygoing way of delivering it. It left an impact, and these memories were in my head as I started reading Wells’ original novel.
Imagine my surprise when it turned out less like the classic Universal monster movie and more like Abbot and Costello meet the Invisible Man. The first half of the book plays off like a comedy, with bumbling police officers, superstitious townspeople who suspect ghosts or the devil is moving their furniture, and a rather comical side character who gets dragged into the situation and keeps trying to assure the invisible man that he is incompetent and thus a terrible minion. Overall it is very silly.
This changes about the halfway point when the invisible man meets a former acquaintance from medical school named Kemp. As Griffin (the invisible man, whose name isn’t even revealed until this halfway point) explains the process of how he became invisible, the story takes a much darker turn with “reigns of terror” and sieges abound. While the book is far more science fiction than horror, the last section involves a man under attack in his home and the invisible man’s attempts to break in, and it is surprisingly suspenseful given all the wacky shenanigans that took place before hand.
All around this is a very different experience from the movie, but I would like to highlight a very big change. Griffin in the film is an overall good guy, but the process of turning him invisible and being unable to change back drives him mad. Griffin in the novel is a right asshole from start to finish. He is shown to have a cruel streak from the start and rather humorously Wells’ tries to show this off by having him curse in just about every line (sometimes the curses are written, but mostly it’s just “and he cursed” or something along those lines added to his dialogue). Griffin is not a particularly sympathetic character in the novel and while Wells’ occasionally makes a understanding nod to him, he is shown pretty much entirely in an antagonistic light.
I think my absolute favorite aspect of the novel is that the advantages of invisibility are dismissed fairly early on in favor of highlighting how absolutely infuriating invisibility would actually be. Griffin sneezes or coughs through most of the novel as he has caught a cold. He discusses how time consuming and hot it is to don a costume in which people could notice you (yet they would still be suspicious given the bandaged state) and just the whole awkwardness of even crossing a street without being run over.
All in all this is an entertaining classic. Wells keeps a solid pace, only slowing down when necessary to explain to his audience some of the "science" behind the ideas. Parts read like a surprisingly modern novel, especially towards the end when the house is under siege. One extremely notable scene of such is (view spoiler)[ a policeman looking around and noticing all the little details around him, such as the butterflies right before he is shot by the invisible man. (hide spoiler)] This struck me as a wonderful, but depressing little scene.
Solidly recommended for classic science fiction fans or those who love the Universal monster movies and would like to see the origin of the film. ...more
I don't know about all of you all, but I keep work in progress reviews on my computer, saved in word documents. I recently went through my file, feeliI don't know about all of you all, but I keep work in progress reviews on my computer, saved in word documents. I recently went through my file, feeling a bit of nostalgia looking through some of the ones I never finished (some for very good reasons as they were dreadful and shall never see the light of day again). I then stumbled upon my review for this book. Unlike the others it was completely finished (although it had a few errors that I've since corrected). Reading it I remembered why I never posted it and decided that it needed to be corrected ASAP.
As you can see above, I gave the novel 1 star and clearly did not like it. My opinion has not changed and indeed looking at it I smiled as I still agree completely with Tim from 2017. Why didn't I post it? Well, I've mentioned in a few of my reviews that I struggle with depression and anxiety. 2017 was an extremely bad year for it. I clearly remember thinking at the time that I couldn't post it because "It's Jane Austen. You can't dislike Jane Austen novels. You're not allowed to not like them. If you dislike it, people will hate you. Don't do this."
Yes, it was a very bad time for Tim's brain.
Well, fortunately the Tim of today is at least slightly more well adjusted (not much mind you…) and I frankly I liked this one. Guess I'll just post it now before my brain kicks into panic mode again. ______________
Northanger Abbey is Austen's parody of the gothic… at least it is for maybe the first twenty pages and the last twenty, other than that it's a below standard romantic comedy. Don't be fooled by the gothic name drops and intriguing start; this is your standard fill-in-the-blanks framework filled with misunderstandings, parental disapproval and "oh dear me I made a mistake that was so bloody stupid that everyone had to know where this was going, but I need sympathy because I'm the lead and because this is a Jane Austin novel I must be endearing." Seriously, this is one of the most annoying main characters I've ever read. I'm frequently willing to suspend disbelief but the stupidity of her actions made me question how I'm supposed to identify or even tolerate her.
As I mentioned it's known for the gothic parody parts, and some of them are amusing (though frustrating because of our lead's annoying actions). She honestly comes off like a parent's worst fears, just substitute gothic novels for video games and a "oh dear, our child has been brainwashed by the media and will act on it." Well, that's silly. Even children understand the difference between reality and fiction and… oh nevermind, there she goes looking for proof of the sinister. Obviously not genre savvy or you would know this is the wrong sort of book to find a madwoman in the attic.
Had the book contained more gothic elements rather than starting with them, forgetting about them for almost two hundred pages before running back to them like you didn't make a narrative mistake, it would have possibly been more entertaining. Instead it feels like it a bad mishmash that has no clue what it wants to be.
I would now like to clarify that somewhere in the flinty pits of my petrified heart I wanted to like this book. I think that's why this review is so actively angry. I majored in English, I wrote several pages on the Gothics and frankly a parody of them by such a well loved author sounded amazing. Yes, I went into it expecting something that it wasn't… usually I'd say that's on me… but this time it really does feel like the only reason this book is remembered (other than because of who the author is) is because of the gothic parody aspect. That's all that's mentioned… and there's just not much of this. If you go into it expecting a parody, you'll likely be disappointed (as I very much am). If you're going in expecting a standard Jane Austen novel (on what had to be an off period of writing for her) perhaps you'll like it. I sure as hell did not. 1/5 stars
_______________
There you go past Tim! It's posted! Feel relived... ... ... ... Please don't hate me....more
Loading...
