typee

Typee: A Peep at Polynesian Life was Herman Melville's first book. The paperback version I read, is from Penguin Classics, printed in 1996. I borrowed this copy from my office lending library.

This version looks like it may have been prepared with the school market in mind. There is an introduction (about 20 pages) by Professor John Bryant, who also prepared other commentary on the text, and an extensive appendixes. Bryant's introduction helps to place Typee within Melville's life, as well is within the larger context of the world in which it was written. Bryant, according to the bio in the front matter, is a professor at Hofstra University and an author and/or editor of all things Melville, basically. yeah, Melville nerd 

It was interesting to learn that Typee was published in Britain, and then in America, but editors in each took offense to differing things, and so Melville modified or removed items to suit the local tastes, actually, more than once, which means there are two authorized versions--British and American--each with its own various editions, as ther edits and corrections were made. That, of course, makes it difficult to know what the original, unmodified author's intent was. Bryant has edited this version as a hybrid between the two, to try and get at the most complete and accurate interpretation of the author's original story. To that end he has also made 'corrections' to the manuscript for typos and in some case words that Melville may have selected in error. These edits and corrections, along with explanatory notes are included in the appendixes.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Melville was essentially stranded on this island for months,* living with the natives, and essentially shacked up with a local young woman. That, along with the fact that the women went around topless--when they weren't completely naked whilst swimming, bathing, or just hanging out on a canoe--was one of the things Melville needed to edit out or tone down, in order to keep from stunning British and/or American readers.

What was maybe most problematic, however, is that Melville had a real problem with what so call 'modern society' had brought to the natives of the South Pacific at the hands of missionaries. Its was Melville's believe that way the natives lived, in harmony with nature, and at ease in their tribal societies, was not improved by the introduction of modern society. He was heartbroken that in an attempt to improve the lives of the natives, the missionaries brought structure and religion to a place where Melville that it wasn't required to improve either the people or their lives. The introduction of structure and religion also meant rules, governance, and money. In reality, from Melville's point of view, at least, that meant the white men came to exploit what the islands had to offer, and what the native used to take for free from the forest they now had to work for, and quickly came under the thumb of westerners. It was apparently too much for his readers, worried his editors, that men of god could be making the lives of those they were trying to 'save' so much worse. Melville uses the colonization of the Hawaiian Islands as an example of the corruption, poverty, and exploitation that westernization had brought at the hands of missionaries. He also didn't believe that all missionaries were innocent of the tragedy they wrought. On the contrary, it was his believe that even some who came with good intentions were swayed by the luxuries that exploitation brought and were soon become exploiters themselves.

Its clear then, that Melville isn't interested in a purely maritime adventure story, based on his escapades. Melville's ability to fatten up his stories appears to have been born here in Typee. From what was essentially a tale he told at parties, Melville, at the urging of his listeners, put down his adventures, and then added in a bunch of other information that he had researched or heard about, along with his personal thoughts about colonization and evangelism, in order to flesh it out to a novel. Whole chapters on how harpoons are made and used in Moby Dick, I'm looking at you.

Is this nonfiction? A journal of actual events with some additional researched information (which may or may not be completely accurate) thrown in? Or is it a fictionalized account, inspired by the true events witnessed by Melville while he was stranded on the island for those few months and some other information that Melville used to support his social commentary conclusions about western interference in native cultures and the societal damage caused by religious indoctrination? To be honest, I'm sympathetic to Melville's thoughts about western exploitation of native cultures. Not just here, but everywhere. 

I called this Melville's first novel, multiple times during this entry, but perhaps that's unfair. Lets just say this is Melville's first book and leave it at that. This was is worth a read if you haven't already.

* Depending on what you read (or believe) Melville may have been in captivity, albeit a very relaxed captivity, for multiple months, as the story indicates, or maybe just a month.

gawain and the green knight

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl & Sir Orfeo are three poems translated from Middle English by J.R.R. Tolkien. The first two were discovered contained in the same manuscript, along with two other poems, written in the same hand, around the year 1400, according to the introduction, edited by Christopher Tolkien from a number of sources which original with his father, including notes, transcripts from broadcast interviews, etc. Sir Orfeo is contained in three extant manuscripts, and the one Tolkien used is dated to the 1330s, inscribed, probably in London. The original authors are unknown.

Tolkien worked on the translations a number of times from the1920s up through at lest the 1950s according to the preface by Christopher Tolkien, and in some case in collaboration with other experts in the field. In some cases, Christopher found multiple versions, and made an effort to use the most recent updated forms for this publication. The copyright is dated 1975 and held by Tolkien's long time publisher, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. and published in 1980 by Ballantine Books, of New York.

The trickiest part of the translations, according to the front matter, is the rhythm, not the strict iambic metrical foot used in other forms, such as Shakespeare, but a more loose rhythm of stressed and less stressed syllables, more closely matching natural speech, combined with alliterative sounds within many of the lines, such as this example given in the Appendix (also credited to J.R.R. Tolkien, and edited by Christopher):

Tirius went to Tuscany         and towns founded*

In this line, I've bolded the stressed syllables in red, and obviously, Tirius, Tuscany and Towns alliterate. I've added the break in the line, as the example in the aforementioned appendix did, to illustrate that each line is composed of two chunks, according to Tolkien.

The trick is apparently finding the words in moderns English that both tell the same story, give the same intended meaning, maintain the meter and rhythm, and don't damage the structure of the poem or its speech patterns so much that it is no longer a worthy representation of the original.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is the longest poem, at about 80 pages, Pearl is about 33 pages, and Sir Orfeo is shortest at about 15 pages. Each seems designed to be spoken aloud, as one assumes that not many in the 1300s and 1400s could read, and they each seems to be focused on a story that is both exciting, and includes lessons on life and strong moral. They each extol the glory of God and being good, and the rewards that come from keeping both of those aspirations close at heart. Each also has a sprinkling of magic, often dressed as dream or phantasm brought on by sleep, drink, or love. All of the ingredients for that which Tolkien was trying to restore to England, its lost native mythology, which he imagined was as rich and diverse as the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, or any other ancient civilization that didn't suffer the losses brought on by England's northern, damp climate, which is so hostile to things like old parchment manuscripts.

What I found most fun was the similarities in some of the themes from the adventures themselves that were clearly the inspirations,** at least in part, for some of Tolkien's fiction. That itself, is worth the price of admission.

* Sir Gawain, stanza 1 

** Tolkien fans out there will have heard the comparisons between The Lord of the Rings and Wagner's Ring Cycle (Der Ring des Nibelungen) which Tolkien denied, and still many try to say that it is at least partially inspired by Wagner, regardless of the author's dismissal. But Wagner was himself inspired by an old Middle High German poem from around 1200, called Nibelungenlied (The Song of the Nibelungs), which is in turn, based on oral traditions that likely go back to Old Norse sources, which Tolkien did study. In his 2011 essay on this comparison, Jamie McGregor provides a quote from Tom Shippey's work on Tolkien, indicating that Tolkien has a distinct dislike for Wagner (and other authors, including Shakespeare) and felt that they "had got something very important, not quite right." That, to me, explains why the similarities are present, i.e., they used the same source material, but Tolkien's inspiration, and what he took from the texts and traditions he studied, could be his own.***

*** One of Tolkien's friends--and a member of the Inklings, which they founded with their literary friends--C.S. Lewis, was described by Roberts Giddings, again, according to McGregor's essay, noted above, as a "rabid Wagnerite" and in his mind the source of the Wagner "taint" in Tolkien's work. Not having read Giddings work myself, I can't tell you if that theory is supported by any evidence, but in absence of that, I'll only add that it may be that Lewis saw these associations himself, and may have even brought them up to Tolkien himself, and if he did, I assume that Tolkien's response was the same to Lewis as it was to more public comparisons, altho, I also assume, perhaps more pointed.

women of troy

Pat Barker is an English writer that’s been at it for 40 years or so. She’s won the Booker prize and has a few other accolades. When I did a web search for the cover of this book the title hit on this book and two other things, well, maybe it’s two variations of the same thing: The Trojan Women, a play written by Euripides in 415 BC, and a modern play adapted by Jacob Kempfert and Benji Inniger for Bethany Lutheran College. A little more scrolling gave me a movie of the same name about a women’s basketball team.

The story takes place in the aftermath of the War of Troy, as told by Homer in The Iliad. I wouldn't call this a sequel to The Iliad, but a different perspective, focused on the people ravaged by war and typically forgotten. The story is told from the POV of the women living in the camp of the victorious Greek or Achaean army, taken from their homes in Troy and forced into slavery, or in some cases matrimony, by their Greek overlords.

Barker writes of how these women manage to express their wishes, and strive to fulfill their own agendas, even under the strict supervision of their captors, as women have always had to do when living in a patriarchal societies. Barker also shows us is that there is very little difference between women who are stolen from their homes and families, and often their own husbands, who live as slaves and those who are forced to marry the higher echelons of the invading army. The very men who killed their families, and murdered their male children.

This was an interesting read, and the writing is simple and to the point. You can see why Barker has won a number of awards.

lord of the rings

Is this a re-read? Yes.

This may be the fourth time I've read this... maybe? could be the fifth? The first time I was a teen; maybe 15 or so? I suppose I could do that math, but the results would include some guess work. I was assigned The Hobbit in the 8th grade, and then I actually read The Hobbit the summer after the 8th grade. I think I read The Lord of the Rings in high school, which I borrowed from my Uncle, or.... maybe he got another copy and gave me his old one? Yes, I think that's right, those iconic 1970s paperbacks, as shown on the left.

The second time I read through them I read these same books, but after a while, they started to take a beating, and the glue binding was starting to break down. So at some point, I bought a one volume paperback edition. I did the one volume thing so I could get to the appendixes when I needed to. In the three volume versions, the appendixes only appear in the third volume, so you need to carry that around if you need it. The one volume paperback is fine, but the stresses on the glue binding are too much and its been falling apart for a while. Because of its size, its also cumbersome to read, and I eventually went out and bought a three volume set of paperbacks, which is what I read the last time through, in 2016. But the one volume is fun, I think I'm going to try and re-bind it.

After reading through this a few times, I've begun to see some of the rhythms in Tolkien's writing shining through a bit. There are some spots where he seems to be impatient to get to the next (major) point and the narrative, and doesn't provide as much of the detail of those moves are accomplished as he had in other places. I wonder if this is pressure from publishers, or a self-imposed pressure or editing on his own part. You may have heard that one of Tolkien's regrets about The Lord of the Rings is that its too short. In response to the questions and opinions of critics and others, Tolkien offers no quarter, response or apology, in his Forward to the Second Edition, but offers only this to those who have complained that the book was too long:

"The most critical reader of all, myself, now finds many defects, minor and major, but being fortunately under no obligation either to review the book or to write it again, he will pass over these in silence, except one that has been noted by others: the book is too short."

This can probably be read two ways: at face value, or as a subtle jab at his critics, which was only partly meant or facetious. After having read through a number of times, I believe Tolkien did have more story to tell, and while he may not have been referring to The Lord of the Rings specifically, I think he did see a number of his works still spinning in his head, which he was unable to get into print. Tolkien complained a number of times about not having his notes in order, and that peccadillo, along with the rigors of his non-writing life, prevented him from bringing many of those other stories to fruition. I wonder what we'd have if Tolkien had a computer. Would it have increased his productivity, and if so, would there have been a cost to that, in the quality of his work? Perhaps from a lessening of the contemplative way he wrote, and re-wrote, in longhand? mmmm...

All this to say, I believe I've said it all in other reviews of this book. I didn't break down my review this time into three chunks to correspond to the traditional three volumes, only because this is well traveled ground, both for me and for many others. I did want to get some of my thoughts down on why reading a one volume editions vs. the three volume (they both have pros and cons) and on the length of the tale itself. On that point I will add that if you are left wanting more, there is a little more in the Appendices, and I can recommend highly enough that you read them. In fact, back in 2016, when I read through all of these books the last time, as noted above, I recommended that if you are re-reading the Middle Earth books that you read the Appendices first, right after The Silmarillion, and before The Hobbit. This time I was just reading The Lord of the Rings, but I did read all of the notes in the front matter, and the Appendices at the back, before I began the body of the text.

Tolkien is a champion world-builder and creator of mythologies. The Lord of the Rings has a depth and richness that is unmatched by most of its counterparts in fantastic fiction. It still has staying power, the ability to thrill and entertain, even after multiple readings, which hasn't been dimmed by the films, in my mind at least.

Read this book.

sirens of titan

1959.

That's when The Sirens of Titan by Kurt Vonnegut Jr was published. I read a paperback copy that I found on the (many!) shelves of the house we stayed in up in New Hampshire over the Independence Day weekend. This has become an annual trip with my family, and this year's foray was another success. I had never read this sci fi blast from the past, and it looked pretty good, and not all that long, so I took it for a whirl.

So, right off, folks reading this book today will  see that its dated. Not just in the wildly inventive scientific speculations, which have clearly been been proven false since it was written, but also the number of quirks about 1959 society that Vonnegut assumed would last into the indefinite future, and, you know...haven't.

I've seen this a number of times in classic SF, from Asimov and others, who foresaw a world where alien carrying spaceships bopped around our solar system, and humans are augmented and/or armed with super-cool laser technologies, but where women are still fetching coffee. asimov, one could argue, got it even worse

That said, this book has got some pretty original thinking, some wild ideas, and speculates on some pretty crazy ways to accomplish one's goals, despite the worse-case scenarios you may be living in. Its also witty in many places, and pretty funny in some others. There are also some over-arching themes, and even some interesting views on the development--and potentially the very existence--of human life on earth, that reminded my a little of the Hitchhiker's Guide.

This was a fun little throwback, and a treat to read for those interested in classic Sci Fi.

book of treasures

was scrolling through LinkedIn today, as I normally do not do, and I found a video post from the American Library Association which offered a glimpse at the Book of Treasures, or in the original old French "Li livres dou tresor," a medieval illuminated manuscript by Brunetto Latini, politician, historian, poet, philosopher, and teacher (and friend) of Dante Alighieri. Ooo, I thought, a glimpse at a great old tome from the National Library of Russia, count me in.

My first thoughts when the video starts: Wow, that book looks great for its age. Wow, that's not the book that's a box. A box? Wow, that book looks great for its age. Why does that guy opening it have his bare hands on it? Wow (now looking inside at the illustrated manuscript pages on vellum) that book looks great for its age. Well... [spoiler] its a copy. Limited? sure. Less than a thousand copies? yep. Handmade? no doubt. For sale, and this is the glam video for all those patrons of book porn? you got it. The LinkedIn poster: Victor Moliero. The Company: M. Moliero. to be fair, Vic is proly a member of the ALA. whatever.

Its a nice copy, I'm sure. I would have preferred to ogle the original however.*

Also known as Tesoro or Trésor (the treasure) the encyclopedia was written in French during Latini's exile to France between 1260 and 1267. There is a copy of the manuscript in the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Florence, where it is labeled as Ashburnham 125, which may or may not be the very volume from his old teacher that Dante read. The encyclopedia contains three books: biblical, Troy, troyian? Roman, and Middle Ages histories, and natural history, including astronomy, geography and animalia, the second book is about ethics, vices, and virtues, and the third book concerns political science as seen, and in the opinion of, the author. 

The National Library of Russia manuscript is rife with decorated initials, borders, and miniature illustrations including many "arabesques and drolleries" according to the Moliero video, which is why they chose this version to reproduce. Arabesques are ornate designs of interwoven geometric, floral, foliate figures. Drolleries are comedic images, designed to be oddly amusing, whimsical, or jesting. Examples of drolleries in this book include: deer-riding arrow-shooting monkeys, children jousting while riding piggyback on their parents, and a sword swallower. Many of the illuminations are gilded. Other versions are not as illuminated.

More about M. Moliero and what they do can be found on their website if you're interested in, what I assume, is an expensive copy of an awesome old book.

* I tried to find images of the original the Moliero folks copied on line so I could check it out--and share it here--but no luck. If you find it let me know in a comment.

Silmarillion

Sweet, sad, Silmarillion. 

The Wikipedia entry refers to The Silmarillion as a mythopoetic collection of stories. I had to look that one up; and I kind of like it. The tone the stories are told in is a little reserved. Some of the early ones, chronologically speaking, read like bible entries. But when you’re talking about the birth of the Earth—or Ea, Tolkien calls it—then I guess biblese seems appropriate. 

As I understand it, Tolkien felt the absence of a traditional English mythology beyond the tall tales of Arthur Pendragon and his ilk. Something of the scope and depth of the kind the Greeks, Romans, and Norse cultures have; stories that underlay their culture and belief systems, and tie them to their spiritual past. A careful look at what Tolkien has done shows that. From his proto-nursery rhymes, to the linguistic underpinnings of English, present in the early languages of the Quendi, the Elves. 

The Silmarillion is Tolkien’s unfinished backstory, the framework of his world building upon which he built the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. But it’s more than that; it’s his notes on dozens of other stories that he didn’t get the chance to finish. Christopher Tolkien did a great job, organizing, editing and releasing many of these work in the decades after his father’s death. Working, as he says he did when his father was alive, as a kind of amanuensis. One can only imagine what kind of works Tolkien may have produced had he had access to modern word processing or even speech-to-text technology. 

Tolkien described the creation of the world as the first collective music of the Ainur, made manifest by the one god Illuvatar, with all of the good, the bad, and the ugly of a first run, still in there. It’s like a proud papa pasting his kid’s first crayon drawing on the fridge... and then asking us all to live there for eons. augh, I don't wanna live in a first draft. Melkor is licking his finger and touching me! But don’t worry, says Eru, the big man, this is like a dry run. We’ll work out the bugs then bang out a fresh one all fixed up!*

What? Yeah, this ones probly gonna suck, for you guys and everyone else down there, but screw it, right? You guys made it, let’s see what happens!**

In here we find everything from the beginning of the world to the creation myths of the sun, the moon, and the stars; from the origins of elves, dwarves, and men, to the flat world theory; from the flood story to the making of dragons; and from the invention of war, to the making of rings. That last one was inspired, by the way, by the same fables and myths that inspired Wagner and his Der Ring des Nibelungen, "The Ring of the Nibelung," often referred to as the Ring Cycle. Tolkien was also inspired by the Edda, as was Wagner. 

 

This isn't the first time I've read this book, and it won't be the last. My last time through was nearly ten years ago. That review is maybe better than this one. If you want to know why you should read The Silmarillion, or even some pointers on how to read it, check out my earlier review.

Either way, read this book.

 

* I'm paraphrasing, nerds

** Yep, paraphrasing again

 

 

kim

I don't think I've read Rudyard Kipling since I was a teen; that was probably Captains Courageous. A quick look at the Books page here on the blog tells me I'm wrong; I read The Jungle Book; Just So Stories in 2010, but didn't write about it. Anyway, I guess you could compare Kim with The Jungle Book, in that it focuses on a young man or boy in India. In both stories the boy has 'gone native' and ends up moving toward a more civilized (less wild) life as a young man. Perhaps its a parable on how we all grow: from a life of play and fantasy as a child, to the norms of society as an adult.

Perhaps they're just boy's adventure stories.

Kipling was born in India during the British rule (1865) but was sent back to England as a 6 year old for his education. He returned to India at 17, and worked there as a journalist and poet until he returned to London as a well known author at 24. So he spent some formative years in India, and you can see why he focused some of his well known stories on young men in India.

Kim (Kimball O'Hara) spends his early life as a street urchin, begging for his meals, and doing odd jobs where he can get the work. His street savvy has caught the attention of a horse dealer, who keeps his eye on the young Sahib, living as a local, and speaking to vernacular.

The story takes place over a number of years (roughly 1898 to 1902) and across a huge swath of India, from the Himalayas and Umballa (Ambala) down through New Delhi and Lucknow, to Benares (what is now Varanasi.) By train, and often on foot, either on an errand for the horse trader, or in the company of a Tibetan lama, whom he adopts and becomes a chela (guide) for in the lama's quest. In time, the lama, the horse trader, even a wealthy widow with her own children and grandchildren, become a kind of family to Kim who has lost his own family. They help him find purpose, education, and an connection to his lost European roots while allowing him to remain true to his 'street' self when he needs to. In the end, Kim even finds wisdom.

There is more to it than that, including a cloak and dagger theme that runs through the book, that I wont get into. I was a little surprised by it, but it gave the story I depth I wasn't expecting when I got into it.

Read this book.

the stranger

The Stranger (L'estranger) by Albert Camus, translated by Matthew Ward, is a small book, only 123 pages, but its a chilling, tightly written glimpse into the mind of a what, sociopath? pschopath? I don't know well enough to tell. I'm not sure we had the words to describe the man Camus tells this story about in the 1946, maybe we did. Again, I'm not the person to say. I'm sure the interwebs knows.*

Its written is short, staccato sentences, especially in the first half, that according to Ward, the translator, Camus based on what he called the 'American Style.' So we find ourselves wandering along with this fellow, as he goes off to the funeral of his mother, spends some time at work, with neighbors, at the beach, and with a girlfriend.

Told in the first person, after a while its becomes clear that our man Meursault may be lacking in empathy, but its goes further than that. Stranger is right; Camus tells a tale of a man that just doesn't seem right, and in the end, isn't really right at all.

It was creepy, but a good read. Thanks to Lino for loaning me this book. I apologize for keeping it so long.



* Looks like psychopath is closer to what I was thinking. Thank you internets.

lost things

The title of this book gives a pretty good idea about the kind of story you're about to get into, but its also the title of a mysterious book in the story. The Book of Lost Things is, like many of those stories where young people find a doorway into a magical place, is presumably written by the main protagonist after his adventures in the alternate universe he has discovered. The place our young man has found, is decidedly darker and more grim than the more familiar Narnia, Wonderland, or Neverland. The door to this place opens when the when the land of stories begins to bleed into our world.

And that only happens when a young person begins to suffer from sorrow and loss, which can sometimes bring on envy, and even hatred of another young person they've come to blame (wrongly) for their losses. Hmm... if that kind of child on child hatred is something that helps to crack open the door between the worlds, then whatever is drawn to it from the other side can't be good. yeah, its not

John Connolly has put together a pretty creepy book, that reads a little like a young adult story written for adults. Its all the creepiest parts of Grimms Fairy Tales (and other old stories) reimagined as the even nastier 'real' stories that inspired the fairy tales. David brings these stories with him into the world of stories, along with his own demons, and they blend together in a series of adventures that seem to be leading him toward some kind of conclusion.

As David makes his way through this world, meeting, heroes, monsters, witches, and wolves if he's actually heading back toward home, which he says that he wants, or if he is actually being drawn further into an imaginary world he may not be able to escape.

This story is creepy (as I said) wild, funny, satirical, sweet and sometimes sad. Its a lot like the fairy tales that inspired it, as I guess you'd expect. Connolly has done a great job of spinning a yarn that is both familiar and new.

Bonus: The backmatter in this book includes Connolly's analysis of the various fairy tales he used in the story, what he took from them, and then the text of the original fairy tale itself.

39 steps

I’ve heard the title The Thirty-Nine Steps before but I think that’s because they made a movie with that name years ago. This volume has two short stories by John Buchan but I hadn’t heard of the second one or of Buchan either. The blurb on the back cover talks about how Richard Hannay is the proto James Bond but I’m not sure what that is based on. I was under the impression that Ian Fleming based the Bond stories loosely on his own observations while working for the British secret service.

Both of those stories follow a similar story arc and are led by similar protagonists, the reluctant hero; a man who is clearly a patriot, has certain latent skills, is a gentleman (obviously) and who happens to find himself in the right place at the right time to prevent a calamity that would certainly mean the end of Britain as he knows it, and may perhaps mean the end of the civilized world. What’s a man to do? what, what

Each of these short stories is broken down into a series of chapters that play like mini episodes or adventures in the overall story. The chapters have names like The One-eyed Red Mustachioed Groomsman or The Weeping Lady in Ermine so you have good idea where our man be headed or at least who or what he may run into along the way. yeah, I made those chapter titles up.

These two tales were fast-paced and fun and I can certainly see the similarities to Fleming’s Bond. Makes me want to go back and read some of Fleming’s stuff, it’s been years since I have.

A quick look at Wikipedia tells me that Richard Hannay appears in a total of 5 Buchan stories, and that The Thirty-Nine Steps first appeared in Blackwood's Magazine in 1915.

The second story in this slim volume is called The Power-House, and follows the adventures of Edward Leithen, a British MP and lawyer, who I think also appears in a number of Buchan stories. Unlike Richard Hannay, Leithen is more of a home-body, rather than a man-of-action as Hannay is. Leithen seems to use his brains, and careful consideration to take care of business. You won't find this guy hiding in a tree, in borrowed pants, out on the moors waiting for an execution squad to wander past in the night. You're more likely to find Leithen at the club, chatting up some credulous acquaintance whilst sipping a whiskey and soda.

Both were fun. Read this book

till we have faces

Till We Have Faces: A Myth Retold is a novel by C.S. Lewis, who (as everyone knows) is the author of the Chronicles of Narnia. What I was surprised to learn is that Lewis was mainly an author of non-fiction, did a little bit of fiction, and other than Narnia, wrote almost nothing else for children.

Till We Have Faces is a retelling of the Cupid and Psyche story, who earliest known rendering was put down by Lucius Apuleius Madaurensis (or Platonicus) in his Metamorphoses in the second century BCE. Lewis uses the myth as a starting point, or what he calls a 'source' for his novel in a note in the backmatter of the book.

In Lewis' version, the story does not focus on Psyche or Cupid, but is rather told from the point of view of one of Psyche's sisters. In the original story, Psyche is the youngest, and most beautiful of three sisters, daughters of a king. When she meets Cupid in the original story, she falls in love with the god, and her sisters, jealous of her good fortune, contrive to trick her into betraying the command of her lover to never look upon his face. Lewis has the oldest daughter, the story's protagonist, visit Psyche alone, and unlike the original story, can not perceive (or even conceive) the splendor and love in which her sister now lives, and thinks she is victim of some horrible trickery.

This is Lewis' view of man trying to understand the magnificence of God, and failing. He even describes the relationship between Cupid and Venus, his mother in terms similar to the Christ story. In some cases they are one in the same, being both mother and son, shadow and light, ravager and savior. The telling is similar to the original only in its beginnings. The story itself focuses on the struggles the eldest sister has in life and her relationship with the gods. She even sets her will against the gods, but in the end accepts that the gods are great, and indeed beyond our understanding, even if they do things that enrage as well as enrapture us.

This was an interesting read. I don't know that the happy ending I hoped for, or even the tragic ending that can also occur in myth, ever came to pass. The story just sort of ended when it was over. If one was reading it for its Christian overtones, one may have a different opinion of the ending, but I'll leave that for others to decide.


Update: I forgot to mention that I picked this book up from a 'Little Library' in Dracut, located at the rear of the town hall parking lot. Leave a book, take a book.

pride and prejudice

Jane Austen was bangin' out the hits back in the day, and Pride and Prejudice is one of her best known. Sense and Sensibility, and Emma are others she is probably most famous for. They were published in the early 1800s, with help from her brother, and here's where I want to kick a trash bucket across the floor; No one knew who wrote them until after her death, even though the first runs of many of them sold out right away.

Pride and Prejudice is written from the POV of Elizabeth
Bennet, and gives a marvelous glimpse into the mind of a young, English woman of the upper middle class--the daughter of a gentleman, as she is described in the text. Eliza is intelligent, quick-witted, bold, and is not the type to lie down and let the men in her life tell her what to do. She is, however, able to make her feelings known, and is certainly not above love and caring for men.

As the title indicates, Austen seems to be making her own thoughts clear on the silliness of the separation between the classes, who one assumes, looked upon her and her own family, as they look upon Eliza Bennet and her family, with both too much pride and distinct prejudice. Given that Austen was born in England just a few months before America declared its independence, one can imagine that she grew up in a society that was rapidly evolving amidst that struggle against aristocracy.
Pride and Prejudice celebrates those both inside and outside the aristocracy who rebelled against these societal sins.

That societal struggle is what underlays this story, but the principal narrative is one of relationships, love and romance, peppered with jealousy, envy, obstinance, stupidity, shamelessness, scandal, absent-minded-zealotry, scoundrels, and mean girls. whateverrr Its fresh and timely still, which must explain why it has been adapted so often for movies and plays.

Read this book. I've read it before, that's why is on my 'great' list, to the right. And I'll probably read it again.

oresteian trilogy

The Oresteian Trilogy consists of three plays, translated from ancient Greek; Agamemnon, The Choephori, and The Eumenides. These plays, written by Aeschylus (525 - 456 BCE) tell of the tragedy that befalls Agamemnon and his family shortly after his return from the 10 year battle in Troy. Paris has been defeated, Troy sacked, and Cassandra taken as spoils of war back to Argos (Mycenae) and his wife Clytemnestra, sister of Helen.

You'll recall that Agamemnon went to Troy at the request (demand) of his brother Menelaus, King of Sparta, whose wife, Helen was stolen by Paris during a visit to Sparta for a wedding. Menelaus was obviously pretty peeved to lose he wife like this, and demanded the armies join him in marching on Troy to punish Paris and retrieve his queen. This bit is told in The Iliad, and because that story was as well known then as it is now, Aeschylus could skip to the days before Agamemnon arrived home.

Why is it, that after 10 long years beneath the walls of Troy, watching countless other men die in battle, including his brother Menelaus, Agamemnon has to travel all the way back home in victory before tragedy catches up with him? Well, that has to do with the curse on his family, that extends back to his grandfather Tantalus, who feasted with the gods, and then betrayed their secrets to mortal men. And it doesn't end with him, but with his children; Iphigenia, Electra, and his son Orestes, for whom the trilogy is named.

Because this story is so well known, is apparently why Aeschylus chose it to teach the populace about justice. Not the eye-for-an-eye justice of the ancient gods, but the modern justice of the emerging Greek democracy. Aeschylus weaves the ancient and modern ideals together, and like any persuader worth his salt, uses the believes of the people as a bridge to a new way of thinking. Conscripting Athena herself as the voice of justice, forming the very first court of justice, with 12 citizen jurors to decide the fate of Orestes, and finally bring an end to the family curse.

Because Aeschylus has an agenda, he's had his with the story and the characters to suit that agenda, so the stories in these three plays do not align with much of the popular Greek myths concerning these characters. 3000 year old fan fiction?

Translated from Greek by Philip Vellacott, who also wrote the introduction.

gatsby

The Great Gatsby is a small novel, but artistically, its a study of personalities and a writing gem. I haven't read Fitzgerald's stuff before, but looking at some of the titles, he seems to be interested in a particular slice of 1920s sub-culture: rich men living around the edges of society through ill gotten, or at least questionably gotten gains. That idea is solely from what I've taken from Gatsby and the titles of his other books, like The Beautiful and the Damned, and The Love of the Last Tycoon, which Fitzgerald was working on when he died at forty-four.

Fitzgerald seems to say, hey, you've been to (or witnessed) these parties, you've seen these people, here's what they're really like. For all of those who have looked on as the rich whiz by in their fancy cars; watched as their huge parties lit up the neighborhood sky and raged into the early hours with all of society except them, Fitzgerald says: See, they're not so different from you and I. Although F. Scott Fitzgerald did run with that crowd--he and his wife Zelda Sayre Fitzgerald split their time between fancy upscale living on the east coast and in Paris--he does seem to be able to separate himself enough to write about it.

Zelda, incidentally, was also a writer, as well as a painter and an all-around kick-ass woman. She seems to be at least as interesting a person (if not more so) than her husband. I may have to take a look into her.

The book is narrated by Nick Carraway, and working man from a well-to-do family in the mid-west, summering in New York to work in the city. He happens to be neighbor to Gatsby, and is soon drawn into Gatsby's orbit, and thereby represents the every man perspective, peeking behind the curtain of this flamboyant, rich lifestyle.

This book is less than 200 pages, so its a quick read. Thinking back on it, its amazing how many different personalities are studied. Not just the main characters, but many of the second tier or supporting characters are also dissected and examined as they relate with, crash into, and sometimes bounce off their rich and mighty peers. Its a tragedy of Shakespearean scope if not scale.

Read this book. If you read it in high school, read it again.

twenty years after

Twenty Years After is a follow up or sequel to The Three Musketeers, by Alexandre Dumas, so its part of the D'Artagnan Romances, so called. The finale is titled The Vicomte of Bragelonne: Ten Years Later. From what I understand, this is a big book, and includes three parts (or at least is broken into volumes that way.) 

According to Wikipedia, the three parts of Ten Years Later are independently called:

• Part One: The Vicomte of Bragelonne (Chapters 1–93)
• Part Two: Louise de la Vallière (Chapters 94–180)
• Part Three: The Man in the Iron Mask (Chapters 181–269)

But more about that tome when I read it, back to Twenty Years After. The story is complex, as are all the Dumas stories I've read. He relies upon his readers a great deal, and given that this, like many of his novels, was written in series, he needed to help his readers keep the story straight, so he occasionally speaks directly to the reader, reminding us where we are in the story as we move along. This, along with the language, gives the story an old-timey feel, as you'd expect with a classic from this period.

Twenty Years doesn't move along as well as The Three Musketeers, the plot is good, solid, it just isn't as fun as The Musketeers. Dumas seems to struggle at some points to resolve issues he's written himself into, and while he does it, it doesn't feel as seamless as with Musketeers or Monte Cristo. In many way, it seems as though Dumas answered the call of his readers and gave them more Musketeers. Some, but not all, of the characters are the same. Where they are the same, they bring with them their old feelings, as one would expect, but occasionally, the intervening years has softened some of those feeling. It is those insights which make Dumas stand apart. Just writing in serial alone must be complex and require much forethought; its seems to me that the thought put into these stories is what elevates them.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I knew that The Man in the Iron Mask was a sequel to The Three Musketeers but I wasn't aware of this book until I bought that book, brought it to Italy, and discovered in the front matter that I was missing something. In a word: no wonder. This book was good, it just wasn't as good as it could have been, and I can see why it is generally overlooked. le yawn

I'll probably take a break from Dumas in the short term. This book took me three weeks (or more?) to read, and I could use a break. I also don't know where I put my copy of the next one, I think its in a box somewhere.

wizard of oz

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum came free with a copy of The Man in the Iron Mask I bought at the bookstore to bring with me to Italy. Come to find out The Man in the Iron Mask is the last in a series of sequels Dumas wrote to follow up The Three Musketeers. It’s actually the third part of a long third book so I have a few thousand pages to read before I get to the Iron Mask.

Oz on the other hand was a pleasant surprise—it’s a completely different story than the cinematic superstar of the same name. The introduction (written by J. T. Barbarese along with end notes) were informative and included some helpful analysis which helped me to understand the differences between the book and the movie, as well the stage production which Baum helped to write. Apparently the stage production included some of the changes from the book which appear in the movie. The consensus being that production of some of Baum’s fanciful ideas may have been either too expensive or simply not possible at the time.

It was fun to read the story that so closely matches the movie we’ve all seen so many times but is different in both subtle and dramatic ways. Oz has been compared to both Peter Pan and Alice in Wonderland. Both have young heroines and both stories can be summarized as the fanciful dream of the main character. This is exactly the storyline of the movie version of Oz, but that is not how Baum envisioned the adventure of his heroine.

The writing is simple and geared toward his target audience. Baum also consciously avoided the terrors common to children’s literature to that point. Baum was also the first to break the mold of many standard children’s story characters, most importantly was the creation of good witches; a concept which didn’t exist in children's literature befor e Baum.

Read this book. Read it to your children and after a few weeks maybe watch the movie together.

count of monte cristo ii

What a monster of a novel! Nearly 1500 pages of Victorian era melodrama. yeah, bring it on!

Alexandre Dumas, nice work, my pal.* You'd think by now, I'd have read everything this man has written, but alas. I guess I'll have to get busy. Dumas, often titled, père (father)--to distinguish him from his son, Alexandre Dumas, fils (son) who was also a writer--was a prolific writer, who often wrote serially, for publication in the newspaper. Its amazing to me that he could write this way, without an opportunity to re-visit earlier plot points, or edit at all, after it made its way out into the world.

I've read The Three Musketeers, but there are 3 sequels to that book alone, including The Man in the Iron Mask. I'm going to have to read that at some point. I just read that another novel was discovered in 2005, called The Knight of Sainte-Hermine; the English title is The Last Cavalier.

Near the end of the story, Monte Cristo says that he, like Satan, once thought himself equal to God, in that he could assume God's responsibilities to punish the wicked on earth. A presumption he eventually regrets, but I don't think he felt bad that he passed out the ass-kicking, I think it was the presumption that bothered him. That and a twinge of guilt for the innocents that got in the way.

As I said in an earlier post, this is, by far, the best story about revenge there is. Monte Cristo is high with it, along with the other substances his place in society made available to him, as my 9th grade teacher alluded to. Monte Cristo is cold, aloof and exacting in his revenge. But we see the tender, sorry side of him as well. Dumas walks that line very carefully with his character so we don't just dismiss him as a psychopath. When Monte Cristo grits his teeth and says to himself, they're going to pay for what they did to me and my family, we grit right along with him.

And its Monte Cristo's money that allows him to do what he does. He has so much, his fortune is almost a secondary character in the story; it plays a supporting roll, whose support never wavers for a moment.

I don't think I'm out of line when I say that I think Monte Cristo may be the best Dumas wrote, and I think Dumas may even agree with me. He named his home, outside of Paris, the château de Monte-Cristo, which has been restored and is now open to the public. clicky-click on the link. the place looks amazing Lastly, I think its worth pointing out that Dumas was not given a burial fitting of his talent, probably because of the color of his skin. In 2002, French President, Jacques Chirac, directed his body be moved from the cemetery at Villers-Cotterets to the Pantheon of Paris.




* You too, Auguste Maquet, who apparently helped plot and ghost write much of what Dumas produced.

le comte de monte cristo i

The cover of my pilfered copy

O, sweet, sweet vengeance.

But that will have to wait for now... I'm not quite at the half way point of The Count of Monte Cristo, one of my all-time favorite books. This must be the third, or perhaps the fourth time I've read it, but its been over 10 years since the last time, so while I remember the story, the details are what really make this story a pleasure to read.

Alexandre Dumas wrote and published The Count of Monte Cristo as a newspaper serial, beginning in 1844, the year he published the Three Musketeers. One can imagine folks eagerly awaiting the next installment, taking turns reading them privately, or perhaps aloud to one another, as other forms of entertainment for work-a-day families and the wealthy alike, were limited. The long form novel, rich in detail, action, and intrigue is just the kind of thing that kept Dumas's readers enraptured during the long months it would take to receive and read the entire story.

My first experience with The Count of Monte Cristo was as a class assignment in the 9th grade. Mr. A___ assigned the book, and we all got a copy of the paperback. In order to introduce us to it, he described the book as full of sex, drugs and violence. Cheers erupted from the classroom. Nice work Mr. A.

I, however, did not read the book. I wasn't a reader. But occasionally, Mr. A would read from the book aloud during class. Looking back, I think he understood that this was very likely how many people enjoyed it originally, and it also helped us to bang out a chapter or so without actually having to read. The other thing it did, as least for me, was interest me in the story. Something that I have done with my own children. Again nice work Mr. A. What did me in, was the final exam on the story. It was either essay questions, or multiple choice, which I failed miserably. Not having read the book, I was not in a position to know the answers, but I found myself wanting to. This is the second time this happened to me; the first being the previous year, when my 8th grade English class read The Hobbit. So I did what worked for me so well the previous year, I failed to return the book at the end of the year, and read it over the summer. Those two stolen books made me a reader. I'm not sorry, its the best money my school department ever spent.

A closer look at the image of the cover of my 1978-9 copy indicates that the book I originally read, and then probably read again a few years later, was abridged. That's not the case with the tome I'm pounding through now.

Back to le Comte, who has just recently returned to Paris...