Wuthering Heights

Another complete disappointment. How did Emily Brontë ever make it into so many lists of classic books? I mean, sure, she wrote at the same time as most of the other classic authors, but she wrote a terrible story. Wuthering Heights is a story composed of completely unlikeable characters revolving around a completely unbelievable story. All-in-all, yet another book that I wish I had not read (except to cross it off my recommended reading lists).

Here I sit on my 25th birthday, writing a critique of Wuthering Heights. One of the regular readers of my blog asked me to review it because she noticed some elements of humor in the story. I tried my best, but I could not see this humor. All I saw was despair, disbelief, and lots of confusion. Dear authors: please do not create several characters with the same name and then only refer to them by one name. It does not help the reader to follow your plot, when they can't tell which character you're talking about. (Read: Earnshaw and Catherine in this case.)

Many people argue that this is a hopeless romantic story, where Heathcliff is willing to go to whatever means necessary to gain the love of a woman. But the only word in that sentence that applies to this book is hopeless. Heathcliff is as neurotic as every other character in the book, if not moreso. We can look at individual characters (though I despair at doing so), and see just how "sane" they are. We have Heathcliff, who is set out on vengeance but ultimately gives up on it (and life) because of a single stroll in the wilderness after seeing a likeness in the eyes of the children. We have all of the female characters, who are completely whimsical (not funny, but following any whimsy that hits them). In particular, we follow young Cathy, who is only happy when she has a man to love her. It's not that she actually seeks enjoyment from them; she just wants someone to like her (and clearly, servants don't count). Several of the men are so weak that they can't even pursue a walk through the park without taking to bed for days. Joseph is a religious fanatic who, like Heathcliff, strives to make everyone's life miserable. That leaves the narrator and Nelly Dean (the pseudo-narrator). Even these two are unlikeable! Nelly is the biggest gossip in the entire story, willing to give up the families' stories at a minor suggestion by the narrator, who then gobbles up the entire story. This story he uses to taint his views of the permanent residents, hiding from Hareton and Cathy when he returns to visit. Not to mention his unwillingness to accept a reproach, when Heathcliff attempts to make him leave for the night at the beginning of the book. All-in-all, every single character has something at least unlikeable about them, but most character are completely despicable. I struggled through the entire book, seeking the humor that my friend asked me to seek, and unable to find anything but complete disdain for every character in the book. If Emily Brontë was trying to create a book in which you could like no one, she clearly succeeded; but I have a feeling that was not her intention at all.

As a parting thought, the entire time I was reading the book, I had a single thought in mind: This book is terrible. No wonder it is Bella's favorite book in Twilight. It is only slightly less morbid than she herself is (although I can see why she would relate to a completely co-dependent character like Cathy). Maybe I'll write more on that subject later, but it's my birthday and I'm done thinking about such horrible people.

Diana Wynne Jones

It is with very heavy heart that I present the news that Diana Wynne Jones has passed. The reason that I consider this such heavy news is that Diana is, without a doubt, my all-time favorite author. You may have noticed that in previous posts I refer to authors by their last names, but I feel like Diana has worked her way into my life so well that I can call her by her first name. Diana has created some of the most original and dynamic worlds that I have ever visited, all created through her words. While I have met at most 5 other people in this world who know the genius of Diana Wynne Jones, I nonetheless will remain an avid supporter of her works; I just regret that I didn't get to read all of her books before she died, nor did I ever write her any bit of fan mail. I ran across one of her books in a local bookstore when I was in late middle/early high school, and because it had a cat and the quote "If you're missing Harry, try Diana!" on the cover. I was indeed missing Harry [Potter], and I absolutely love cats, so I decided to try out the book. I didn't read the book for over a year, however, but once I had my wisdom teeth out, I was incapacitated for about a week. I finished reading 600 of the 700+ pages in The Dragonbone Chair, a book that I had been struggling with for over 5 months (I started it in April and had only read 100 pages by August. If you know me, that tells you how much trouble I had making any progress in it. The only other book to compare is The Fellowship of the Ring, in which I got to 100 pages but then spent months trying to get past the walking. And the walking and walking. Let's not forget the walking, followed by the walking. Then they walked for a while. Then they arrived at shelter, followed by a bit more walking. Enough, Tolkien! Anyway, I digress). Once I finished The Dragonbone Chair, I was looking for something else to read, and I settled on The Chronicles of Chrestomanci, v. 1 by Diana Wynne Jones. Rarely have I so rabidly devoured a book! In less than a day, I had finished both stories contained within. I had to have more. I started scouring bookstores for Diana books, to little avail. But what I could find, I loved.

Over the years, I managed to find a few of her books here and there, and even went so far as to purchase one of her books (The Merlin Conspiracy) in a Canadian airport when I came across it, for several more dollars than I would have paid in America (yes, including the conversion rate). But it wasn't until about two to three months ago that I found some of her books in the SLIS library here at UW, including a book (Archer's Goon) that has been out of print for several years. I was sitting at a table near the computer lab when I looked up and noticed her name. Thank goodness she was on the end of a shelf of books, or I doubt I would have even noticed! Upon further inspection, they had nearly and entire shelf of her works, and I know that I will be checking out several more of those books that I haven't been able to find elsewhere yet.

So, let this serve as my bit of an elegy to Diana Wynne Jones, a fantastic and fantastical writer who will forever remain among my top authors or perhaps even as my favorite author, as I don't foresee anyone else moving ahead of her anytime soon. Rest in peace, DWJ.

Diana Wynne Jones, Aug. 16, 1934-Mar. 26, 2011

Anna Karenina

Wow, what a great book. I know I probably sound pompous: you've all seen facebook friends whose favorite books are 1984 and Pride and Prejudice and The Great Gatsby. I've read them all. None of them is that good. Let me repeat: 1984, Pride and Prejudice, and The Great Gatsby are not amazing books! They're well-written. They have some "fun" characters (I use the term loosely, because I really don't know how to describe Elizabeth Bennett and Jay Gatsby). They may provide some amusement along the way. But how many of us really like reading deep pieces? How many of us want to read a book in our leisure time because it's going to make us think? Let's be honest: NONE OF US. We read books to escape! We read books for pleasure! Enough of the pretentiousness that most intellectual-like Americans aspire to. Let's be honest: most of these books are boring! They don't give us plot; and when they're just here to give us intellectual stimulation, we stop reading them! I challenge most of my facebook friends to justify why they "like" most of the classic books that they do; I doubt they have justifiable reason. I've read half the books they like, and as I've said before, they're boring!

But enough of that, Anna Karenina is a great book. I must admit, I read it over the course of several months, so my citations are rather week and my overall impression of the book isn't altogether solid. But I do know that I enjoyed the book the whole time I was reading it. In particular, I've recently become acquainted with the last 200-or-so pages of the book. I must say, I have rarely been as passionate about a book as I have been about these last 200 pages. I WANTED ANNA TO DIE! I had the misfortune of having a roommate to glibly mentioned that Anna dies when I was a mere 100 pages into the book (trust me, this was the least of the roommate's transgressions; June cannot come soon enough for her to move out). So I had something to expect. I read for quite a while, kept putting off the book as I read other things, and ultimately came to Anna to finish a couple weeks ago. I had further strange misfortune of a Jeopardy! question that referenced a character jumping off a train platform to commit suicide (close but inaccurate!) to further ruin the story for me. But regardless, I persevered. Around the time of the Jeopardy! question, I started realizing what a pain Anna was. She had no conception of the real world, and really was driving everyone around her (and even moreso the reader) nuts! I was ready for her to die! So fortunately, two weeks and 200 pages later, Anna finally committed suicide, and my world relaxed immensely.

Now, I may seem melodramatic in my description above, but I'm surprisingly accurate. Tolstoy is an amazing writer who really draws his reader in. In my case, I was completely drawn in by Anna's personality, however unbelievable it was, to the point that I was expressing to my roommates and anyone who would listen just how ready I was for Anna to die! I've never felt so strongly about a character (well, maybe about Harry Potter, but I wanted him to live!), and that is serious testament to the power of Tolstoy's voice. As unbelievable as Anna's character is, I was completely drawn in, and I wanted her eliminated from the story.

On the flip-side was Levin, who always maintained his worldly ways. The back of my copy described Levin as "a self-doubting agnostic who takes a different path [than Anna] to fulfillment and finds faith and marital bliss in an age of repression." I don't really feel that Levin reached the "marital bliss" that the back cover talked about; rather, he was doubting religion almost up to the end. But at least he was tolerable. His views were comprehensible and, also, tolerable. He didn't believe that the world was out to get him; rather, he felt that he needed to make a difference in the world. Suffice to say, I could really relate to Levin's character, while Anna's character was completely foreign to me.

Anna Karenina is an absolute gem of writing, whether it's truly a dichotomous view of Tolstoy himself or not [as the back of my copy tells me]. Regardless, he creates a great story where one will be rapt in the most dull of scenes, and moreover will become passionately involved in each of the characters portrayed within. A must-read!

Stephenie Meyer and Twilight

I want to start this blog by stating how ashamed I am that I read the entire Twilight series. I should have known from the mixed reviews I was receiving and the scattered yet scathing reviews that I heard, just how bad these books were. I want to provide a caveat up front: if you have any dignity, DO NOT READ THESE BOOKS! The only Twilight book that is halfway worth reading is the fourth book, Breaking Dawn. Unfortunately, "halfway worth reading" is still infinitely better than my caveat, because the three books that build up to it are filled with drivel. Add to that a lack of knowledge of how to write proper sentences in the English language, and you have Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series. I don't care how popular vampire books are these days, the Twilight series hardly even fits in that category; it completely distorts the classical image of the vampire into some hyper-sexualized creature that actually cares for humans.

So, now to my analysis of Twilight's popularity. My best analysis here has to do with the book's romance aspects. A huge portion of Twilight's readers are middle-aged women, and it is these readers that I wish to analyze. I don't want to over-generalize, but quite a few middle-aged women love reading romance novels. At the same time, there is a stigma associated with romance novels that cause a lot of women to avoid them, despite their enjoyment of the subject material. Twilight represents an innocuous novel that allows women to explore their romantic side.

I believe that teens feel the same draw to Twilight: it's a chance to read about romance without the stigma associated with romance novels. The teenager can dream about "true love", and the fact that you can truly feel like you belong with someone. But one of the biggest problems I have with Twilight lies between the two reader groups: teenagers and adult women. The characters in Twilight are 17 years old. In most states in the US, 17-year-olds are considered to be minors. I don't think any of us would ever expect to see a 40-something mother watching pornography involving 17-year-olds, and yet we constantly see them reading about it. What's the difference? The sex isn't explicit, but it's most certainly implied. Regardless, the sex is clearly there, and it seems to be this that middle-aged women are enjoying about the book. So let me offer another piece of advice: find romance books that are age-appropriate. If you're 17, then reading about 17-year-olds' romances may be appropriate; but if you're a 40-year-old mother, then sex between 17-year-olds is inappropriate. Please help us to remove Stephenie Meyer from the "canon" of modern literature. Relegate it to the list of authors who can't compose a proper sentence and whose stories are largely comprised of a moody, co-dependent 17-year-old girl and the boy who can't seem to get away from her, only because of his bloodlust. Since I can't think of a single other book that fits in this category, I'm going to place it in the broader categories of "I can't believe I read this whole series!" and "Make sure no one else suffers through this book like you did."

Modern Authors

Something that has been on mind for a few days now is that of modern authors. In recent years, I have started reading what I consider to be "popular" authors and books, with the excuse that "I want to know what all the hype is about". I have mixed feelings about them, thinking that certain authors are absolutely fantastic, whereas others are fly-by-night fads that will fade soon. However, that latter sentiment is only a hope, because these authors have become popular already, which to me implies that they will stay popular for a while. In the next few posts, I intend to discuss such popular authors as Dan Brown, Elizabeth Kostova, and Stieg Larsson, with perhaps a couple forays into Stephanie Meyer and J. K. Rowling, and maybe some reference back to Tom Wolfe. I have read all of Kostova's and Rowling's books, and unfortunately I've also read all of Meyer's Twilight books; the whole Robert Langdon series of Brown; The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Larsson, and The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test by Wolfe. These authors are all ones about whom I have strong feelings, be it good or bad. I welcome any speculation about how I feel about each one, whether I feel like they are the fly-by-night that I mentioned or if I believe that they are actually contributing to the canon of literature. But in due time, I will reveal my feelings about each one, for better or for worse. So please, let me know how you feel, and we'll see if I agree or not.

Dan Brown

One of my friends recently read The Lost Symbol, which he called a "Waste of my life" in a text message to me. I almost completely agree with him. I replied with the comment "Where is the Dan Brown of Angels & Demons?" I read The Da Vinci Code in December of 2005, and I was decently pleased with it. Not a bad read, although it didn't quite live up to the hype that it got through the media. It was good enough that I decided to read the aforementioned Angels & Demons, which was actually a very good book. I was impressed by the ambigrams, which were pretty cool. And the plot was engaging, keeping me rapt from one page to the next, from the beginning of the book to the end.

But once the movies started coming out for these books, I started remembering the faults I had with these books. Angels & Demons was faultless for me, but The Da Vinci Code is another story. There were moments I disliked in it (but being 5 years since I read it, I can't remember exactly what they were), and the movie only served to emphasize them. Add that to the fact that Tom Hanks was not the man I would have chosen to play Robert Langdon, and I was not at all pleased. But that's beside the point. I want to talk about the books, not bad casting directors.

I intend the main points of these posts to be a discussion of why I think these authors have become popular. For Dan Brown, I have little doubt as to why he became popular: he offered an alternative view of history in regards to some of our most beloved symbols, or even in regards to the symbolism that doesn't even register when we see them (I'm thinking of the all-seeing eye featured on the back of the dollar bill). In particular, he offered an alternative view of religious history, which is almost always a surefire way to gain an audience.

Now, I don't believe the stories told by Brown in his books. There is a reason that we classify these books as "fiction". But just look at the hype that has come out of his books: I consistently see shows on the History and Discovery Channels about "the truth behind the Da Vinci Code" and similar topics. People, particularly those with vested stakes in religion, feel the need to dispel any sort of rumor that might hurt the image of the church. I consider myself a Christian, but not a particularly devout one or even one who buys into the dogma of particular religions. But I don't care whether or not the stories told in Dan Brown's books were true; if anything, I think Jesus would be more relateable if he had had relations with a woman at some point in his life, even if it was Mary Magdalene.

But I digress. The reason I think that Dan Brown is popular is that he knows how to play on people's most longstanding beliefs, such as religion or American history. Those with the largest stake in the matter react almost violently to his assertions, which in turn makes people (like me) who don't really care about the topic that much, to read the books to figure out just why everyone is so upset about the content. Despite his shocking content, the most disappointing thing about Dan Brown is his inability to tell a good story. His decline has been progressive: he had me engaged throughout Angels & Demons and through most of The Da Vinci Code, but by the time I was halfway through The Lost Symbol, I was beginning to ask when the story would begin. A tip to all authors, and Dan Brown in particular: SPEND MORE TIME TELLING YOUR STORY THAN YOU DO SETTING IT UP!!! The background can certainly be important to a story, but it should not take more pages than the story itself; in fact, if you go above a 3:1 ratio of story to background, I would say that you have gone too far.

So there are my opinions on Dan Brown. A bad writer who has the knack for making people react to his controversial subject matter. Despite this dislike of Dan Brown's writing style, I still intend to read the rest of his books and any more that may come out in the future. He knows how to create a good story, even if he's terrible at telling it. I have Digital Fortress on my bookshelf to read at some point, and I hope that it will involve better storytelling when Brown is not trying to upset the foundations of Christianity and democracy through one of his Robert Langdon tales.

Banned Books and Urban Revitalization

Unfortunately, I don't have much to say about urban revitalization. I grew up in one of the most rural states of the Union (I could easily go off on a tangent about Union/Confederacy and how West Virginia re-seceded, but I'll spare everyone the trouble), meaning that I have almost no experience with urban revitalization, homelessness, etc. I did, however, post about the exact same article as the group used, about the homeless and the downtown Madison library, on November 18th. So yeah, I think I will let that stand as my discussion of that topic.

Now for the other topic, that of banned books. Naturally, as an avid reader, I have much stronger feelings about banned books than I have about other topics. I don't believe that books should be banned, although I do believe that some books should perhaps not reach the hands of some people. One example would be that I would prefer that criminals not have access to The Anarchist Cookbook. Interestingly, I have reservations about letting children read books like Lolita or Anna Karenina, and yet having read (most of) Anna Karenina, I don't think that it would harm children to read it. I can hardly tell where the sex scenes happen, let alone do I think children would be able to. Madame Bovary is another example, which I read for my senior French thesis, and yet I hardly knew where the sex happened in that book, either. I in fact had to read some Cliff's notes to even point out the spots where it happened. Tess of the d'Urbervilles falls in the same category, that even after I was told where to look to find the sex scenes, they were impossible. I remember reading the introduction before I read the book (almost always a bad idea, but in fact absolutely necessary for reading this book, or else I would have missed the primary theme entirely), and it explained what was going to happen to Tess. Either I'm oblivious, or Thomas Hardy hides all of the sex very well.

Now, I realize that not all of these books have been banned. But they're books that stand out in my mind as possibly "offend[ing] the public morals" (the reason cited for originally banning Madame Bovary in France). I realize now that I'm in fact making the same judgments about Lolita that many censors often make about books they challenge: I, like they, have never read it. I've read the other three, and they're all definitely offensive (if you can get beyond the flowery language of the past to actually find where it's offensive). But as I said, children won't be able to flesh out those hidden nuances. It reminds me of when I read Gulliver's Travels. It was nothing but a fun read about an adventure a guy goes on. It had nothing to do with satire; in fact, I didn't even know what the word meant!

So, I suppose I should pull this all back in. I'm surprised at how much I'm actually leery of letting children read some of these books, but I also would have been offended as a child if there had been a book I wasn't allowed to read. Even now, the fact that a book is "off-limits" makes me want to read it even more. When the group presenting mentioned that book sales rise after a book is banned made me think of this very reason: people want to feel like they're doing something "rebellious", and this is an easy way to do that.