My fourth Edith Wharton novel; I think she may be one of my favourite female classic novelists. Edith Wharton called Summer, her “hot Ethan.” Before reading this book, I thought I would like this more than EF because that novel was very bleak. I liked Charity in the first chapter and then grew indifferent to her; though, the plot had more interested and sympathetic to her plight towards the end. When it was first published in 1917, it was not a critical success though many see it as Wharton’s finest work. It is dramatic, but not in the way EF’s ending is because there is definitely a sense of realism to Charity’s predicament. It must have been controversial in its time, and like most of Wharton’s work, has themes of forbidden love and women who “fall” from grace in some way. All in all, I grew to appreciate the weight of the work by the ending however much I did not come to love the characters.

My third Hardy book which makes him my most read Victorian author I think. It’s not that I love him, but I keep being drawn to his books and not finding him irritating to read. I had heard good things about this one in particular. Nothing could be as tragic and as sad as Jude the Obscure. I liked Gabriel the character very much in this book. I thought there a few genuinely funny and romantic scenes in this novel. Bathsheba is naive young woman though; however beautiful and spirited she may be. For a woman who is independent and self-confident, she has no way of dealing with men. She always leads them on and it’s sad to watch her get entangled as is often the theme with the relationships and women in Hardy’s novels. I haven’t read Tess yet, but this is definitely my favourite Hardy novel of the three I have read so far. Having read both this, his first novel, and his last novel (Jude), I can appreciate Hardy’s progression as an author.

Alexandre Dumas’s epic tale of suffering, revenge, and providence. An enjoyable work with elements of the gothic and romanticism making it very much of its time. I think the plot is well executed for the most part even if I was bored of when the scenes were not about the Count in some way. All of these characters have lengthy backgrounds which link together wonderfully and with good planning on Dumas’s part. Another notable style is that most of the unseen action or past actions is told in dialogue. The work, at over 1200 pages, did not actually take that much time when I got down to it. It would have been better if I had read it in French because I realize that that some translations can vary greatly in terms of titles and interpretations. I just thought I would read this epic novel faster in English, but circumstances prevented that. When I reread it, it will be in French, and I will enjoy it again. By the way, I read the Penguin Classic edition translated by Robin Buss.

I liked most of the characters and appreciated the subtle characterizations. I did enjoy Dumas’s The Three Musketeers as well, and he can craft some interesting people. I really liked Edmond Dantes at the beginning and Abbe Faria. Dantes changes so drastically through the book, and once he becomes the Count completely, he is very mysterious and omnipresent. He does appear Godlike or preternatural, but it does make the book more interesting having such a superhuman character. He kind of reminds me of Batman and other morally ambiguous superheroes from graphic novels or comic books. I wish there was more of Mercédès who is often described as one of the most intelligent characters. I also really appreciate the mother-son relationship between her and Albert.

The ending was okay, and in some ways, I kind of like the ending of the 2002 movie adaptation more as it gives a more hopeful ending for a couple of the characters. I wish Mercédès got a better ending because while Dumas is not harsh to female characters as some authors from the nineteenth century can be, he is not generous either. Most of the “passive” females are given good characterizations (Mercédès, Valentine), and those that are active are usually immoral (Mme Danglars, Mme de Villefort) or odd (Eugenie). Mercédès’s fault also seems to lie in her passivity (girl can’t win) so her ending leaves me dissatisfied because she seems to be punished while she holds less blame and guilt than others. Aside from those who truly acted ill against Edmond, her suffering is the most complete. It’s a credit to her character that she takes it gracefully, but not to Dumas’s view of women especially shown in her last scene and her somewhat hopeless ending.

On a more positive note, the book was engaging for the most part, and I like the last line:

…all human wisdom is contained in two words- “wait” and “hope.”

My first Elizabeth Gaskell novel. I have wanted to read Wives and Daughters and North and South for awhile, but somehow Cranford ended up being my first Gaskell. This novel is about the lives of the predominantly female, older population of the eponymous small town. There is little way in plot, and the tone is quiet and subdued like the setting of the book itself. It does have moments of amusement, satire, and cleverness that displays Gaskell’s ability as a writer. The vignettes are subtle and you can get so much from the characters from them. It is actually a good social portrait of England in the early mid-19th century. Many of the stories are based on actual events from Gaskell’s childhood. I would not recommend it to everyone as it quite slow, but I found many of the moments in the book touching. While the characters can be rather silly and gossipy, they are not vindictive for the most part, and stood by those they loved in the end. This novel worked on my sentimentality and sensitivity as you can tell. I liked it, but I understand that few people could get really into it.

The recent adaptation and mini series have already aired in the U. K., and PBS’s Masterpiece Theatre will begin its three week run of it tomorrow night. I have heard good things about it, and I wonder how they will shape the stories told in the novel. I do think that that with a cast led by Dame Judi Dench that the emotional aspect of the novel can be conveyed easily with the right script. I look forward to it, and will report back on it in a future blog post.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s short novel of a day in a Stalinist camp is a story of human dignity, survival and faith. The Stalinist prisons were not for criminals, and they attempted to break the wills of those in the camps. Ivan, or Shukhov as he is referred mostly in novel, is essentially a dignified and proud character. The characterization is subtle. He is from a peasant background and not particularly intellectual, religious, or rebellious, but there is a quiet dignity and pride about him. He is simple, and very much the beautiful every man: 

And although he had strictly forbidden his wife to send anything even at Easter, and never went to look at the list on the post–except for some rich workmate–he sometimes found himself expecting somebody to come running and say: ‘Why don’t you go and get it, Shukhov? There’s a parcel for you.’ Nobody came running. As time went by, he had less and less to remind him of the village of Temgenyovo and his cottage home. Life in the camp kept him on the go from getting-up time to lights out. No time for brooding in the past.    

I liked this novel. I think it’s hard to pinpoint what’s particularly unique or special, but it is a straightforward and well told story. There seems to be such wonderful simplicity in the prose that gets across the character and the experience of camp life so well:

Shukhov’s idea of a happy evening was when they got back to the hut and didn’t find the mattresses turned upside down after a daytime search.

The book ends with a discussion of faith, religion and spirituality which is part of the survival of the camp. In his own way, Shukhov is spiritual in his actions and the way he carries himself. He has hope after all:

For a little while Shukhov forgot all his grievances, forgot that his sentence was long, that the day was long, that once again there would be no Sunday. For the moment he had only one thought: We shall survive. We shall survive it all. God willing, we’ll see the end of it.

Published in 1818, Mary Shelley’s novel is styled with Romanticism (the descriptions and prose), Gothic (atmosphere and setting), and Horror (story and plot). At first I felt pity for the Frankenstein monster, but the story did give way to horror. I was not scared so much as fascinated by the way the death and violence unfolded. The set up of the novel is interesting too because there is a lot of characters telling each other stories: Victor Frankenstein telling his story to the narrator Walton, and the monster telling Frankenstein of his own story early on. The monster is really eloquent due to his readings of classic works. In the film versions, I think they dumb his rhetoric considerably. I think this is a testament to the time because everyone just spoke elegantly compared to now. The character of Victor is introduced as this broken but noble man, and as you read his story, the huge mistake in his life becomes him. He goes from being just a solitary, content young man to someone full of despair, self-pity, and misanthropy. The character is best seen at the beginning and at the end when he has accepted his mistakes and actions. There are few themes that can be read into this story. The references to Paradise Lost made me consider the idea of inheritance of the earth and who has more right? The monster says, “You are my creator, but I am your master; -obey!” Does Adam do unto the Earth because he is created to inhabit it? Does Lucifer have rights to rebel once he is created? Once we create, what are our responsibilities and what is that in which we’ve made? The novel did ask questions about the limits of man in science and technology. A quick and enjoyable classic.

By Vladmir Nabokov. 315p. I read this for the Second Chances challenge as I have already read Lolita. The books are different, this one being far more postmodernist than the latter. Though, Nabokov’s distinct style is present in both of these book. This work is very interesting, unique, and layered. I’m not going to say it was enjoyable at all times because I was confused at parts, amused at others, and bored intermittently. It has a lot of references and allusions, and there is more than one story to be read. It’s the type of book I would like to analyze in a classroom setting, but I’d probably be sick of it pretty quickly too as a result. It is funny in parts and full of twisted black humor and ironic, strange narration. The plot is told in a nonlinear way, and as a reader, it can be daunting going in to all this.  The characters (or character really) are hard to grasp because of the narrative style, and pathos is not the point. There are many interpretations of the book itself. The prose is quite good, and it is interesting albeit perplexing. It is clearly not a book for everyone, and in my humble opinion, I don’t think the book should be taken too seriously. The book was interesting enough for me to continue and look forward to reading more Nabokov.