The Lord of the Rings: Why I Love It

I haven't often spoke of my affinity for J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings on this blog.

I think Tolkien's signature is super cool.

But I assure you, my affection for this book is strong, and to demonstrate this, my post-that-is-technically-for-the-classics-challenge is more enumeration of things I love than a proper review. I shall endeavor to be as spoiler free as possible, but I give no promises as to conciseness. 

To start, I would like to say that I watched the movies before I read the books. In general, it's better to read the book first, but there are some cases where it doesn't much matter (e.g. Ella Enchanted). This is not the case with The Lord of the Rings. I strongly recommend that you read the book first. Read the book first. Please. Don't follow my example. Although I fell in love with the story from the first moment of hearing Galadriel's voice, and afterward wanted to read the book, and did so, I would have had a greater appreciation for the book if I had not first read the movie. For, one tends to be more partial to the first thing, and so I started the book with a "this isn't like the movie" perspective, rather than a "what a wonderful story" perspective.

The movies, albeit very good renditions of the book, and truly spectacular films in and of themselves, are not as good as the books. Things are changed, obviously. Not just rearranging scenes and cutting dialogue because it has to be shortened, but other changes which do bother me. (I shall shortly link to a guest post that I wrote for The Red Book where I go into more detail about these changes.) Not to say that I don't recommend it — don't even get me started on that glorious soundtrack!

One objection that is often — and with reason — given against the movies is the violence and gore. There are three major battles, many skirmishes, and frankly, not a few disgusting orcs. (Plus Sméagol's transformation.) The book, however, does not tell us all the details of rolling heads and dripping blood. The battles are tastefully described, Tolkien apparently feeling that he "had no right to wound our feelings by attempting to describe" gore.*

Not having heard any else AGAINST The Lord of the Rings, I shall proceed to share the many reasons FOR it.

1. The themes. The classic struggle between good and evil is so poignantly played out. Although the dialogue is not from the book, this scene almost makes me cry. "But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow." That theme, if not the line, is in the book. Yes, I know Tolkien did not intend his book to be an allegory, but when a strong Christian writes a thing, Truth will show, and in the temptation of the Ring, the temptation of sin that we face each day is well-portrayed. If you've already read the book or seen the movie, this page talks about Christ figures in the book, and I found it quite interesting. It does contain spoilers.

2. The words. Oh, there's so many quotes I could quote. I love Tolkien's description (and the dialogue is good too, but I quote mainly the description because it's just so great.). He uses personification and metaphor generously.

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve. This was unexpected and rather difficult. There was some scattered clapping, but most of them were trying to work it out and see if it came to a compliment.

So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.

Deserve it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For the even the very wise cannot see all ends.

The quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong. Yet such is oft the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.

In this high place you may see the two powers that are opposed to another; and ever they strive now in thought, but whereas the light perceives the very heart of the darkness, its own secret has not been discovered.

The day waned, and dusk was twined about the boles of trees.

Cold clammy winter still held sway in this forsaken country. The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark greasy surfaces of the sullen waters. Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed up in the mist like ragged shadows of long forgotten summers.

There was a deep silence, only scraped on its surfaces by the faint quiver of empty seed-plumes, and broken grass-blades trembling in small air-movements that they [the hobbits] could not feel.

For a while they stood there, like men on the edge of a sleep where nightmare lurks, holding it off, though they know that they can only come to morning through the shadows. 

The level shafts of the setting sun behind beat upon it, and the red light was broken into many flickering beams of ever-changing color. It was as if they stood at the window of some elven-tower, curtained with threaded jewels of silver and gold, and ruby, sapphire and amethyst, all kindled with an unconsuming fire.

3. The poems. There are quite a lot of poems in this book, so I could hardly name my favorite. Here are two that I particularly love, incidentally both composed by Bilbo:

All that is gold does not glitter,

Not all those who wander are lost;

The old that is strong does not wither,

Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,

A light from the shadows shall spring;

Renewed shall be blade that was broken:

The crownless again shall be king. 

The Road goes ever on and on

Down from the door where it began

Now far ahead the Road has gone,

And I must follow, if I can,

Pursuing it with eager feet,

Until it joins some larger way

Where many paths and errands meet.

And whither then? I cannot say.

I also like the song of Nimrodel, but it's rather long to quote here. (And basically all the rest of the poems.)

Oh, okay, two more (the first by Sam):

The finest rockets ever seen:

they burst in showers of blue and green,

or after thunder golden showers

came falling like a rain of flowers.

Where now the horse and rider? Where is the horn that was blowing?

Where is the helm and the hauberk, and the bright hair flowing?

Where is the hand on the harpstring, and the red fire glowing?

Where is the spring and the harvest and the tall corn growing?

They have passed like rain on the mountain, like a wind in the meadow;

The days have gone down in the West behind the hills into shadow.

Who shall gather the smoke of the dead wood burning,

Or behold the flowing years from the Sea returning?

4. The characters.  If anyone can watch all three movies or read the book and not adore Samwise Gamgee, I'm not sure what I think of this person. Sam is so loyal, humble, hardworking. He is very hobbity — not a noble king, not an all-knowing wizard, just a simple hobbit with a love for simple beauty and goodness. Yet he is as strong as any of the more dashing heroes in the book, or stronger. I have heard other people make disparaging remarks about Frodo, calling him "weak" and mocking how he *SPOILER* fails in fighting Shelob. *END SPOILER* Okay, how about you carry the embodiment of evil around your neck into Hades, let's see how strong you act. Frodo is very strong. To keep going when all hope is gone, to just keep walking, is no light thing for one in his situation. Frodo — hobbits in general, really — is undervalued. Which is rather ironic, because a good deal of the book is about how undervalued they are.

I used to dislike Tom Bombadil (another unfortunate effect of watching the movies first), but now I like him, though I find him very enigmatic. He seemed too silly and confusing to fit the rest of the book, but now I appreciate him. Not everything needs to be explained. And I like that his inclusion makes the Ring and Sauron smaller. There is no evil so great that good is not stronger.

Aaaand there's Aragorn, of course, who I fell in love with from his first scene in the movie. Humble, noble, wise, skillful, courageous.

Of course, Gandalf is amazing also. He is so wise. And puzzling. And while he certainly can't do everything, he is a very useful person to have in a tight spot.

Theoden is also wonderful. Like Gandalf, he is not a perfect leader, but he sincerely tries to do what is best for his people. I pity him and admire him.

I love Faramir in the book. He treats the hobbits with greater honor and consideration than the movie shows. (I have always preferred him to Boromir, since I've never identified with the strong war-loving type.) Instead of seeming unfair, he does consider carefully the hobbits case, and makes a decision in their favor, which puts himself at risk.

I have not even mentioned Legolas and Gimli, or Bilbo or Eowyn. But this post grows long. Suffice to say they're very well done too.

All in all, I'm very fond of most of the characters in the story, and I think that's a good deal of what's necessary for a good book. If you don't care what happens to the characters (*coughcoughdivergentcoughcough*), you aren't likely to care about the story, or for that matter, keep reading it at all, especially when it's a thousand pages long.

5. The world of Middle Earth. It is so creative and detailed. Each race — elves, dwarves, hobbits, Men, orcs, wizards — is unique. Tolkien created languages for these people. The hobbits get the most description in the book itself, but the appendices is full of further information on the others. The many places they visit are differentiated too. Contrast the simplicity of the Shire with the grandeur of Minas Tirith, or the darkness of Mordor with the peace of Rivendell. Even places which are more similar — Rivendell and Lothlorien, or Gondor and Rohan — are still unique. Gondor has much more of a High Middle Ages feel, while Rohan has a distinctly more Beowulf character.

Rivendell

6. The story line. It's difficult, without giving spoilers, to draw out the story line so that we can all stand back and admire. It's sad, triumphant, and stirring by turns. I would say it is realistic, but this risks giving the impression that it is one of those depressing modern novels where everyone is suicidal, that people try to defend by saying "it's realistic." No, that's just bleak. Or perhaps it is a realistic picture of what life would be like with everything of God removed (of course, then there would be no earth or life at all). Tragic things happen (the party tree! sniff), which are not always reversible. People die. But "A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer." (Once again quoting lines from the movie, but the feeling from the book.)

Bonus: I love how disparagingly Tolkien talks of "progress" and industrialization. For, I feel the same way!

Do I recommend this book, and to whom? I certainly would. It is suitable (content-wise) for any age, but I will say that when I first read it (age 10 or so) I did not appreciate is nearly as much as I do now. I felt *cough* that it was too descriptive. Bear in mind that at this age I also thought Jane Austen should speak plainer. I had not yet learnt a real love for words, in and of themselves. 

The word "d--n" is used once or twice.

Your servant, Mr. Baggins—

*And I quote Colonel Brandon from Sense and Sensibility. Incidentally, I love this line because of the contrast between this scene with Elinor and Willoughby's "explanation" to Elinor, in which he tries to wound her feelings.

Quite A Lot To Say

Good afternoon, one and all! I mentioned a few things in my 'Little Letters' post in July that needed follow-up, and besides, things have happened since then that were not mentioned at all.
(I'm going to do this professional blogger style and have lots of pictures in this post. Because that's totally necessary to look professional.)

I have a reason for all the pictures, except this one. I just like it.

First of all, I mentioned A Tale of Two Cities. What I did not say, was that I am now an avid Dickens fan and immediately started listening to Bleak House.
What I also did not say is how poorly I am following the Classics Challenge. I really wanted to read my July and August books, but I have been doing school and reading tons of history books (non-figuratively speaking, I'm sure there's been close to one ton of books) and have had precious little time for reading that I can't justify as productive. Yes, I am still plugging away at Lord of the Rings. When I have time for it, I eat it up quickly, but time is of the essence.
I have also put it aside several nights in a row because I have wanted to read North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell for a very long time (I've had it checked out from the library for more than four months), and since I was studying the Industrial Revolution it was a good time to tell myself it was For School. It has been good from the beginning, but at first I'd switch off between it and LotR. Last night all the bones in my body were sort of melting because it was so good and I have no one with whom I can speak of it, as no one in my family or circle of acquaintances has read it! Which also presents the problem of who will watch the BBC miniseries with me when I finish...

But back to the Classics Challenge. I'm currently studying The Civil War era in history, but haven't yet started any other of my subjects. Next week, that will change. I'll be doing Calculus, Physics, a literature group, and another class in addition to history. My reading time is only going to shrink. So rereading The Chronicles of Narnia and the Anne of Green Gables series may not happen. I'd love to so much, but I have more books in my drawer of next-ups, and four or five on my shelf that I've never read at all. Rest assured that I shall do my best to finish the last two months (books that are not rereads) and post about them here.

Moving on, I do have some good news! My sister and I now have a knight in shining armor. We share him with some jealousy but he is open-hearted and treats us equally, I think. Sir Jeffrey is a silver 1999 Honda Civic and we are very happy to have him.

Also, we went camping in the beginning of August and took these Instant Oatmeal Packets. It was my first time actually camping for more than one night, and I liked it quite a bit. I'm now obsessed with the Instant Oatmeal packets. I loooovvveee oatmeal of all kinds. And also millet is really good. My family is going to be doing a grain-free diet soon, so I will get them only rarely, or if perchance I make breakfast alone (I'm alone half the time anyhow so that shouldn't be too infrequent).

I'm also rather obsessed with 1850s dresses currently.

Another thing mentioned in the Little Letters post was drama. Well, for better or for worse I am directing The Eskimos Have Landed, which has nothing to do with Eskimos and everything to do with history, old ladies, and New England. I have a cast of five girls and I'm excited for it. I am acting in a play for the seniors of the group called The Cop and the Anthem, taken from the O. Henry short story. (I'm a waitress and an Irish cop, which is rather funny because I've been an Irish cop before in Arsenic and Old Lace, spring 2013).

I've been writing a fair amount, and I'm 300 words into Chapter 10, of thirteen. The thirteenth is planned to be very short, mind. So in essence I have three chapters left. Then of course it'll be back to the beginning in second drafts. I may take a break and pursue a short story or dabble in something else first. That will enable me to be openly critical about everything instead of it being my newly-birthed darling who shouldn't be touched. Since I wrote a Twelve Dancing Princesses short story in Fall 2014, the beginning of school and autumn weather always puts me in both a short story mood and a Twelve Dancing Princesses mood, which means I have put three or four TDP books on reserve at the library and am excited about finishing Arthur and looking at something else for a while.

I'm also desperately trying to find space in the coming months to hold a ball. Everything is on the drawing board right now, so there isn't much I can say about it, but I wanted to share the above image. For it's so true! Even my dad noticed me doing rock steps while doing dishes.

That's all for now, folks.

Classics Challenge: A Tale of Two Cities (June)

I have so much I could say about this book. First of all, I LOVED it. The only Dickens I'd read previous to this was A Christmas Carol and a Great Illustrated Classics Oliver (yes, Author, we owned an abridged book). I'd mostly heard he was paid by the word, and therefore longwinded, dry, and dull.

Ohhhhh no. Was he ever far from dull! Did I already say I loved it?

Lucie Mannette from the Broadway musical. There's also a ballet of TOTC!

The audio book was almost 17 hours long and it has been my companion during many loads of dishes, several batches of laundry, and a fair amount of laundry. I even considered listening to it while driving [in our new car!], but since I've had my license only a few months I decided that was a bad idea.

I'll greatly miss Doctor Mannette and Mr. Lorry and Darnay and Pross. Even Jerry Cruncher.

Anyway. How to explain this wonderful book without spoilers is tough.

The first paragraph describes well the French Revolution:

"IT WAS the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

And then there was the haunting repetition "Buried how long?" which really intrigued me. I really appreciated that I knew nothing about this book because I was very confused at first, but it made it so hard to put down. The plot is long and complex and I was so curious to know what would happen next! *SPOILER* I will say that I did predict was Carton would do at the end, and also I guessed who Solomon was before he identified himself. But don't let this make you think it was predictable! Personally I like books where you can figure out a few things if you're paying attention. *END SPOILER*

The plot is, as I said, very complex. Everything that is ever mentioned is tied back in somehow. A character barely mentioned will return, I assure you. Something that happened years ago will come back in.

It's also a really funny book. I liked it when Mr. Lorry (I love him!) keeps insisting "A matter of business!" when you can clearly see he cares.

I found it very difficult to find a picture of Mr. Lorry. He has spectacles, people! But I like this one of Miss Pross.

Then it's filled with food for thought. Comparing Darnay and Carton (more on that later) is an obvious one, but also think about the two leading ladies, Lucie Mannette and Madame Defarge. They both have very good reasons to be bitter towards a particular character, but their actions and choices are so different!

  *HUGE MAJOR SPOILERS* Granted Lucie didn't know this about D. before she married him. Still, if she DID know, perhaps she wouldn't have married him, but it's clear she would have still acted in forgiveness (it wasn't his fault to be born into his family) rather than being consumed with vengeance like Madame Defarge. *END THE TERRIBLE SPOILERS*.

I like Doctor Mannette too. He seems weak, at first, but of course this isn't so. He's incredibly brave and strong, but years of suffering take their toll on a person. I love how his relationship with his daughter restores him. He's so selfless, this man. He always thinks of his daughter (and we only learn the depth of this at the end). *SPOILER* I like how we get to see him being the strong one at the end, cleverly using his influence and his popularity for the sake of those whom he loves. When we walks in at the end of Chapter 12 ("Darkness"), oh, OH! :( *End SPOILER*

I liked Charles Darnay from the beginning. I mean, anytime someone is put on trial for his life you kind of feel bad for the guy! 

"The Jackal"

I was at first confused about who Sydney Carton was and confused Stryver and Carton (audio books do that kind of thing to you). *SPOILER* But by the end I was enamored with Carton and frequently whispered to myself as I switched laundry and listened enthralled, "I love Carton!" It's rather fascinating how he, who at first appeared to be a random confusing lawyer person, really becomes the hero of the book. I started out thinking Lorry would be the main character, then Dr. Mannette and his daughter.  *BIG HUGE MAJOR ENDING SPOILERS* Then Darnay enters and it's kind of easy to say "Love interest" and I rooted for him. But really? Which of the "twins" is the more heroic one? We can't say whether Darnay would have died for Carton (though really, Carton died for Lucie, not Darnay), so perhaps that's not answerable. What we can say is that Carton is a lot more complex than Darnay, who's basically just "the good guy". I don't think he's as clever as Carton (but then, one could argue that he came to France when he did not because he was stupid but because a poor innocent servant required his assistance, and he was going to help whether his life was at stake or not). Also Darnay puts Carton down (after the latter had left) to Lucie and Dr. Mannette, which was unkind too poor Carton. Personally, I would have preferred that Darnay died and Carton married Lucie. (No, not really, because Carton was so wonderful in giving his life for love of Lucie, so that she could be with the husband she loved. Oh, Carton. :( ) *END ALL SPOILERS*

It was much harder to find a satisfactory picture of Carton than Darnay. I think that's telling.

"Sadly, sadly, the sun rose; it rose upon no sadder sight than the man of good abilities and good emotions, incapable of their directed exercise, incapable of his own help and his own happiness, sensible of the blight on him, and resigning himself to let it eat him away."

(Sob sob)

Of other characters, we mustn't forget Miss Pross, Lucie's companion/nurse/servant. She's so devoted and strong, and also provides a lot of the humor of the book with her high standards for her "ladybird". Nor Mr. Cruncher, whom I disliked a lot at the beginning. I felt so bad for poor Mrs. Cruncher! Yet even Mr. Cruncher was dear to me by the end, and I think some consistent hardwork in the company of such kind people like the Mannettes was good for him. *LITTLE SPOILER* He did promise to stop interfering with Mrs. Cruncher's "flopping, you know. He improved. *END SPOILER*

No summary of characters would be complete without speaking of the Defarges.

Though shown in a much less favorable light than the Mannettes, they are definitely main characters also. They're well-developed. At first I thought Madame Defarge was just a random lady who was always knitting and I found that hilarious. Of course that was the last of the hilarity we got from her, as she's a woman with horribly twisted femininity. Bitterness and a desire for vengeance has consumed the gentleness and beauty that ought to have been hers. "We can kill as well as the men when the place is taken!" she shouts to other women at the forcing of the Bastille. Though just as lustful for blood as she, Ernest Defarge is less awful. Maybe because she is a woman, and therefore what her character has become the antithesis of her God-given nature.
  *THIS IS A BIG SPOILER* As awful and twisted as Madame Defarge is, when we learn her history it is easy to feel sympathy for her, if not acquit her of all her crimes *END BIG SPOILERS*
 Side note, I loved the showdown between Miss Pross and Madame Defarge. *VEILED SPOILER* But I was shocked by what happened afterwards. It wasn't Miss Pross's fault, after all, so that was a sorry reward for her loyalty. *END SPOILER*

Another thing I really liked about this book besides the witty writing, the well-developed characters, and the enthralling plot, was how Dickens shows both sides of the Revolution. I'm a person who believes there's two sides to every thing, and I don't like it when people assume one person or set of persons is the "good" group and the other is the "wrong". Though the Revolution is rightly shown to be a terrible thing and a horribly unjust time, Defarge is still a realistic human and one we can empathize with. The Marquis St. Evremonde is a consistently awful person, whose crimes no one will condone. We understand that the aristocrats weren't just poor innocents wrongly accused who need rescuing by The Scarlet Pimpernel. Did that happen? Oh yes it did, as this book also shows many examples of. But it's not just "the evil Saint Antoine people" vs. "the poor aristos".

Although I'm not sure that Charles Dickens was a Christian (he believed in God but hated "dogma" and was really rather more of a Deist or a Unitarian; plus he had a mistress for a time), his characters are, and the Bible is quoted on more than one occasion. I love reading about other people's faith in times of trouble, and this was no exception. (Particularly Carton's at the end...)

Random fun fact: France is on their fifth republic, and their motto is STILL Liberty, Equality and Fraternity! That just shocks me. And you probably already know that they still celebrate Bastille day. It just seems very odd.

Do I recommend this book, and to whom? Yes, I would recommend this book to anyone I see who can read. Ha. Probably 13+, because there is a little violence (it's the French Revolution, after all). I think d---ed is used a few times. But yes. I wholeheartedly recommend it.

Little Letters July 2016 ~ or Vacuum Cleaners, Limeade and 90°+

It has been a while since I've written about my life, and so I thought I'd do another "little letters" post to elucidate my state of affairs.

Dear CPU-2T,

I love you. I could just leave it at that, but you deserve more. Your energy, your trim figure, your cheerful color... There is much to admire about you even from a stranger's persepctive, but few can understand the relationship we share. It is unfortunate that there is no legal basis for a marriage with one of your kind. Let me simply say, that there is no one I would rather clean an office with.

There once was an office housekeeper,
Whose vacuum was just a sad peeper.
She was given a CPU
and is no longer blue,
For her new friend's a magnificent sweeper!

Dear Summer,

I have heard you are a pleasant companion in England, Kalaalit Nunaat, and Nova Scotia. There are even some parts of the United States where you are no bad friend. But here, in the Midwest, let me just say that you are abominable. We have had over a month of constant 90°-100° weather, with only half a dozen days of 85° and one blissful weekend of 68°. I. Do. Not. Like. It. I do not like this weather in a box, nor with a fox, nor in a train, nor in the rain (if there's going to be rain it ought to cool the world, not just add to the humidity! One feels cheated!). Please get a hold of yourself.

Dear Limeade,

On these very hot days you are my one consolation (other than my mother, cold black tea, air conditioning, books, and babies). I've never really seen the need for you, since lemonade is so delightful, but when the need arose for a lemon-free and sugar-free drink, I thought I'd give you a try with a bit o' stevia, and voila! You're delicious.

Dear Fleas who reside in the basement,
Get OUT of my house so my poor kitty can come upstairs. You could not be more unwanted if you tried. Just die, every last one of you. (Yes I know I'm a vegetarian and I love killing bugs and I'm a contradiction. Be quiet.)

Dear Tale of Two Cities,

I have heard many poor reviews of your master, Mr. Dickens, but from my personal experience I can now refute them. Your characters are realistic and interesting (with the exception of Lucy Mannette...), your plot is anything but predictable and your writing is witty. Though I am only half done with you, I heartily applaud your maker.

Dear Drama,

It is so strange and sad that this will be my last year acting, and equally strange and exciting that I will get to direct a one-act play. If I could only FIND a one-act play, that is. Directing I'm not worried about, casting I'm just a little nervous for, but finding a script is very trying. 

Dear Breakfast at Tiffany's,

I am so confused. I have so many reactions that I have no idea if I even like you.

My dear, dear, Arthur,

You have reached 91, 530 words, or approximately 366 pages, and yet in all likelihood you will need 8,000 more words before being finished. I am half amazed and half horrified. But there is no "halves" about it when I think of finishing this first draft. Do you believe we've been working together since January 2012? That's over four years. Crazy. There have been ups and downs — goals met and goals failed. Favorite characters who are killed and moments of uncertainty if this work would ever come to fruition. But my dear, I no longer fear that end. 8,000 words seems a large amount to write before I reach the end, but since we've been doing 1000 a day, that's really a very short amount of time.

Dear Future Car,

I would be so pleased, tickled pink even, if you would just get a move on and show up. To say that my sister and I are eager for your arrival is an understatement. 

Dear Tolkien,
I write you yet again because Lord of the Rings is just awesome. The fact that I am STILL reading it, yes, three months after starting it, has nothing to do with the quality of the book. It is neither boring nor hard to read. It is lovely and I regret that I have so little time for pleasure reading, or I might have been finished long ago.

Dear Classics Challenge,
Never mind.

Dear Nineteenth Century,

I love doing school in the summer when it means I get to study history. You're no exception to the fascination I have with bygone eras. Napoleon, Wilberforce, Shaftesbury, Beethoven — and that's just the first half. I am eager to learn more of the second.

Most sincerely,

Classics Challenge: April (sort of) and May, Plus a New Thing

Well, if you remember from this post, my April book was The Lord of the Rings and my May book was a choice between The Scarlet Letter and The Last of the Mohicans.

Heh.

I did not finish LotR in April, as mentioned in my previous post, but I did read The Scarlet Letter in April for school, so that counts, right? I'm considering them switched. LotR I'm still working on, obviously, but it's a long book, okay? I will provide a long post of pictures and thoughts when I finish.

Not my copy, I just liked it.

My thoughts on The Scarlet Letter are complicated. It's a very interesting, complex book, and not at all what I had expected. Hester and Pearl I thought particularly enigmatic. Hester seems sometimes repentant; yet ready to do it all over again, I think. Pearl was a little confusing. This is a great essay on her.
Arthur Dimmesdale was somewhat simpler to understand, yet also very interesting. He has great strength at times, yet is weak-willed mostly and weak in body. *SPOILER* One could write an essay just on his reasons for hiding his guilt. I disagree with him (he would have suffered so much less if only he hadn't), but he's very convincing. If you do, please tell me about it, because I'd love to read it. *END SPOILER* 
 I can't even get into Roger Chillingworth. Talk about complex. He is rather the victim of the story, but in many ways he's also the villain. You want him to fail, though he, of all the characters, "deserves" most to "win". *TINY SPOILER (not even a spoiler, just talking about the books events more than I usually do)* While I don't support Hester's affair or her attempt to leave with her lover, there is a feeling of wanting them to succeed, to get past Roger and onto a "better" life.  *MAJOR SPOILERS* I prefer, though, the way Hawthorne ended it, because a life lived in sin would not have been better. Confessing to God, what Arthur should have done in the first place, was the relief he needed, not a vacation from Puritans. *END MAJOR SPOILERS*
One thing I found interesting (and wrong) was how Hester keeps thinking of herself in relation to her lover, how they are "bound together" for good or for ill, but for eternity. She believes that even if they are kept apart on earth, even if they should be kept apart, they will stand together at the Last Judgment. I guess she didn't read Matthew 22:30.
I did guess the identity of Pearl's father midway through the book, but this didn't detract from the experience. Something that DID was the long prologue which has nothing to do with rest of the book. While interesting (and curiously enough, somewhat true, as it is based on Hawthorne's experience when he worked at the Salem Custom House), it seemed very random and made the book difficult to get into at first. There is no actual content in this book (no description of Hester's adultery or anything), and I don't think there was any cursing, but obviously the topic makes it a better read for high schoolers.

Do I recommend this book, and to whom? I recommend it, yes, as a thought-provoking read, which I interpreted as showing the point of true repentance. High schoolers and up will benefit most.

I highly recommend this article for further thoughts on The Scarlet Letter (it does contain spoilers).


Finally, on to this New Thing for which I have kept you all in suspense. You may have noticed that this post has "King Arthur" and "writing" as labels. You may not. Regardless, I now introduce to you

Rancher Artie: A Mockery of the Western Romance Genre

You now see my cleverness in adding the image above, so that you would not at first see this one.

Or my imagination of The Arthurian Chronicles if they were in the Old West, written for my mental stimulation and your amusement. I shall provide installments whenever I feel like it. Look for the first this weekend.

Toodle-pip,

P.S. I just changed my profile to reflect my new age. I just wrote that I'm seventeen!?!?!?

Classics Challenge: February AND March (both written in April)

Although I have not been prominent around here, I have been reading steadily and completed both Wuthering Heights and The Blue Castle in February.

Wuthering Heights is very hard to put down and I read it in a week. But although I love the ending and the beginning is good, the middle can be quite depressing, especially if read in only a few long sittings that tend to be in depressing atmospheres (i.e., sitting in the quickly fading sun on a Sunday afternoon, as I was).  Also, there are only a few characters who are admirable or even likable (I'm looking at you, Nelly Dean). But then you reach the end, and *COULD BE A SPOILER, depending on how you remember this as you read it* one particular character dies, *END POSSIBLE SPOILER* and everything is cheerful again.
I had heard that WH was creepy and haunting and that was why I avoided it, but it really wasn't. There is a creepy scene towards the beginning *SPOILER* with a ghostly child and broken glass and Lockwood being horribly cruel *END SPOILER* but that is about it.
It is not great, but I liked it. To quote from Charlotte Brontë's preface, "Wuthering Heights was hewn in a wild workshop, with simple tools, out of homely materials."
There is no perfect novel, and WH certainly isn't. I often value characters more than plots, and I thought the characters were well drawn in WH. Some (such as Joseph) may not be terribly realistic, but Emily makes you believe they are.
The language is easier to read than Jane Austen, I think, except for several quotations from rustic Englishmen where the accent is written out (read them out loud to decipher them).

I think there were several quotes I liked, but the one I remember in particular was from Nelly/Ellen Dean (because apparently Nelly is a nickname for Ellen, or vice versa. Kind of like Nancy/Anne), spoken to Catherine (the younger): "You'll lose nothing by being civil." I love that.

Do I recommend this book, and to whom? I would recommend it to teenagers and above, with the above caution of its depressive-inducing powers. Read it during the day. There is also some mild language (I think "hell" was used out of context and also "d---".)


The Blue Castle doesn't really have things I could complain about — there is the same mild language as above, but nothing else — but I found it unsatisfying. How to explain that I could not really say.
First, a summary:
Valancy lives a very dreary life trying to satisfy her reams of family members with all their particularities. She is an "old-maid" (twenty-nine), despite trying hard to be respectable and modest and well-behaved. Then she gets a letter from a heart specialist telling her she only has a year to live, and she realizes she no longer needs please everyone. If she will die in a year, why be nice to rude old Uncle Benjamin in fear of being written out of his will? Why try to pacify her pushy, sensitive mother by cowering in submission and meek apology after imagined slights?

Well, I like Valancy's post-letter spirit...
but I don't like some of her morals.
Barney is okay...
but I'm not attracted to him.
The story-line is very creative...
but it was kind of anticlimactic.

If you are an Anne-fan, Montgomery's writing is still beautiful and humorous. Her characters are unique and amusing as always. But the story of Anne of Green Gables is much better, and the romance is much more... satisfying. I'm not sure how else to describe it but vaguely unsatisfying. Perhaps because the ending was rather anticlimactic, as mentioned above. *ENORMOUS HUGE TERRIBLE SPOILER (but I think I kind of guessed it)* Valancy finds out, perhaps 7/8 of the way through the book (I just made up that number :P ), that the letter was a mistake. She's not going to die after all. So she runs away from Barney (she fell in love and asked him to marry her, which he did because she was going to die in less than a year) in shame and horror and goes back to the dreary life. For twenty-four hours that is, because he runs after her (he fell in love with her after they married, you see). Oh, and he's filthy rich so they need never worry about anything and she can travel the world as she's always wanted. The end. See what I mean? *END THESE TERRIBLE SPOILERS*

Also, *ANOTHER SPOILER COULD-BE if you read into what I say* I guessed the identity of John Foster right away and I disliked that. I think this was partially because I read Dear Mr. Knightley just before, though. *END SPOILER*
L. M. Montgomery was basically a transcendentalist, and this comes through much stronger than in the Anne series.

Do I recommend this book, and to whom? If you are a Montgomery enthusiast, you will probably enjoy this book, if nothing else for the characters.

 It is not one I will reread and reread just for fun, but I do plan on revisiting it when I have the chance, to perhaps get a better handle on it (and learn why it doesn't sit right with me) by a second reading.

Little Women Comparison Post, of a Rather Different Nature

When I wrote my previous post on Little Women I had intended to include another set of comparisons, but apparently my mind was still under the effects of the terrible malady, for I wrote the entire post without once remembering my secondary aim, viz. to show the similar nature between Little Women and The Penderwicks series (considered as one book for the purposes of this post).

(Spoilers for The Penderwicks are in green, spoilers for Little Women are in dark red. Spoilers for both are in black.)

To begin with, the story features four sisters. These four sisters have only one parent around at the beginning of the story, but by the conclusion they have two ( Mr. March returns home, and *SPOILER* Mr. Penderwick remarries). *End SPOILER*
Both the Penderwicks and the Marches live in Massachusetts!

Not all of the sisters match up exactly with their counterparts in age, but there are some similarities:

• The eldest sister is practical. Her name is long (Margaret in Little Women, Rosalind in The Penderwicks), but her family often calls her something short (Meg in Little Women, Rosy in The Penderwicks)
• The second oldest sister is rather a tomboy and pretty stubborn and feisty (Skye in The Penderwicks, Jo in Little Women). 
• One of the sisters is a prolific writer (Jane, the second youngest in The Penderwicks, Jo in Little Women). 
• One sister is artistic and beauty loving (Jane in The Penderwicks, Amy in Little Women). 
• Another is very shy of strangers, sweet, piano-playing and music-loving (Batty, the youngest in The Penderwicks, and Beth in Little Women - hey, both of their names begin with "B" and are nicknames for Elizabeth). Both are animal lovers, too.
• They are all pretty close, but the two middle sisters (Sky and Jane,  Jo and Beth) are closest to each other, and the eldest and youngest (Rosalind and Batty, Meg and Amy) are closest to each other. 

Then we have the clincher: Laurie/Jeffrey. In the beginning of both stories, the girls meet a boy who comes from a rich family but is lonely. He loves music. They informally adopt him as a brother and he is adored by all the sisters. He has only one parental figure (Jeffrey in The Penderwicks has a mother, Laurie in Little Women has his grandfather), who does care about him but doesn't understand him very well and can be stern (Mrs. Tifton is a lot stricter and more snooty than Mr. Laurence, however).
*Spoiler!! You may know this about LW and could guess it in reading TP but be warned!* Laurie/Jeffrey (Lauffrey? Jaurie?) falls in love with Jo/Skye, or fancies himself in love anyway. Jo/Skye (Jye? Sko?) can't see him as anything but a dear brother. Laurie ends up marrying the baby of the family, Amy, who has loved him since childhood. There is one more Penderwick book, which Jeanne Birdsall is currently writing, and I can't help guessing that Jeffrey will marry the baby of the Penderwick family, too: Batty. This is merely conjecture, but do look at this quote from the first book, after Jeffrey had rescued Batty:
"As I was saying [said Mr. Penderwick], in some cultures it's believed that when a person saves someone from death, he or she forever owns a part of that someone's soul. So Jeffrey is now linked to our family whether he likes it or not."
"That's kind of romantic," said Jane.
"Romantic, schmomantic. What the heck would Jeffrey do with Batty's soul?" said Skye.
Batty opened her eyes sleepily. "He could marry me," she said.
"Marry you!" Jane and Rosalind laughed while Skye fell off her chair and rolled around the floor like Hound when his back itched.
What do you think?
*END SPOILER*

Plus, neither the Marches nor the Penderwicks call their mother "Mom" or "Mother": the Marches generally use "Marmee" and the Penderwicks use " Mommy" or *SPOILER* Ianthe. *END SPOILER* Okay, maybe I'm stretching the similarities a little. ;)

There are some differences, of course: as mentioned, Mrs. Tifton is several degrees more unpleasant than Laurie's grandfather. *SPOILER* Rosalind doesn't marry Jeffrey's tutor and have twins, like Meg (as far as we know). And neither Jane (Beth's counterpart in age) or Batty (Beth's counterpart in personality) die. *END this SPOILER, begin THIS SPOILER* In the third Penderwick book, they acquire two more siblings, unlike LW. *END ALL SPOILERS* The Penderwicks are not rich (with a college professor's salary??), but they aren't so poor as the Marches. Obviously (or not so obviously), LW is in the civil war era while TP is modern. TP involves animals more directly than LW. Both sets of sisters get into scrapes, but the Penderwicks get into more, and the March sisters' scrapes are more social awkwardities than problems such as losing people/creatures or making a terrible mess in other people's houses.

These things are quite minor in comparison to the similarities, in my humble opinion. I conclude, that if TP was not based on LW, it is very coincidentally close in characters and setting. I heartily recommend both!

Classics Challenge: Little Women

Well, I have finished the first month in the 12 Months Classics Challenge, which for me, was reading Little Women. I finished on February the second, actually, and fully intended to start Wuthering Heights that day, and write this Little Women post on Friday or so. ..... Except on Tuesday I got the flu, meaning that, although I had quite a lot of reading time over the past few days, the only thing I had energy to read was light fluffy stuff, not a "classic I've always dreading reading". (I also spent quite a lot of time watching season two of Downton Abbey, which I've decided is fun and is perfect for when you literally don't have the energy to leave your bed all day or even have energy to read, but not worth my time when I'm not sick, as it is really a veiled soap opera.)
However, Wuthering Heights appears to be a little shorter than Pride and Prejudice, which I can read in a week or less, so there ought to be no troubles finishing it in the month of February, even if I don't get started until tomorrow. We will have a lot of time in the car tomorrow so I should be able to get a little ways into it.

Little Women was illustrated by May Alcott.

To get back to Little Women, I have decided not to do an official "review" for the books I chose for the Classics Challenge (unless I have a very contrary-to-normal opinion about it and feel I must review it for all the world to understand). If someone needs a summary, it's an easy thing to do to find a summary of a classic book online, and finding a list of objectional elements is also easy, so I don't feel the need to provide either of those.  I'm planning to do a post on each one (and I will mention at the end if I recommend this book or not), but not in a review form. What that form will be will depend on the book. For Little Women, I'm doing a comparison post. I love reading historical fiction and "true" stories, but I always wonder how true it really is. After reading a book/watching a movie of this type, I therefore usually do some internet scouring and try to sleuth out the actual story. As I thought the comparisons between the March's story and the Alcott's real lives to be really interesting, I'm sharing them here in this handy-dandy chart.

SECTION	LITTLE WOMEN	ACTUALLY...
Basic Plot	Four daughters in a poor family living in the Civil War era; they do their best to be good while enduring many troubles, large and small, in their familiar, comfortable home.	There were four daughters, and the Alcott family was even poorer than the Marches. The girls growing up years were a little before the civil war. They moved frequently, even spending seven months in a transcendentalist commune started by Mr. Alcott.
	Meg and Jo like to act plays together.	Anna and Louisa liked to write and act plays together also. Anna especially loved to act, and she fell in love with her husband after acting opposite him in a play.
Marmee	Mrs. March is beloved by her girls, hardworking and patient.	Abigail May Alcott seems to be all that Marmee was to the March girls.
Father	Mr. March has gone to be a chaplain in the war. He is admired by his “little women” and, while Marmee is the queen of the household, he is their anchor and foundation as he seeks raise all his children wisely and has a special relationship with each.	In some respects Mr. Amos Bronson Alcott’s principles did guide and shape the family (such as taking them all to the Fruitlands commune), but he wasn’t quite the admirable figure from Little Women. He was not a bad father, but he valued his principles above his well-being, which naturally hurt his family’s well-being. He did a poor job of caring for his family and may have tended to laziness. The rest of the family did not want to try the fruitlands experiment and Mrs. Alcott threatened to move herself and the girls away, at one point.
Meg March	Meg is the eldest, a little vain and bossy, but practical and loving. She earns money for the family by governessing.	Anna Bronson Alcott seems to be pretty much Meg.
	(SPOILER ALERT) Meg marries John Brook, Laurie’s tutor. They have two twins (Daisy and Demi) and a little girl, Josie.	Anna married John Pratt and had two sons. Fun fact, the description of Meg’s wedding in the book is an actual description of Anna’s wedding at Orchard House. Unfortunately John died after only ten years of marriage, and Anna and her two boys moved in with Louisa, Lulu, and her father.
Jo March	Jo is a writer. She used “sensation stories” to care for her family but grew ashamed of this and wrote better stuff.	Louisa was indeed a writer (big surprise there, major spoilers, I know). She used short stories and poetry, along with sensational novels (under a penname) to take care of her family also, until she wrote Little Women and its sequels. She also wrote quite a lot of other novels.
	Jo earns money even in her early teenage years by reading to Aunt March, and then by teaching friends of her mother’s in New York.	Louisa earned money as a governess, seamstress (both she and Jo were the dressmakers of the family) and domestic helper. She was also a nurse for six weeks in the civil war (she would have stayed longer but contracted typhoid).
	(SPOILER ALERT) Jo marries Friederick Bhaer and has tons of boys (some biological) and has a school of sorts.	Louisa never married. She died at age 55, at home, of a stroke.
Beth March	Beth is the peacemaker of the family, the quiet, contented sister.	Elizabeth Sewell “Lizzie” Alcott seems to be very similar to Beth, except she doesn’t seem to have been quite as scared of society.
	(SPOILER ALERT) Beth contracts scarlet fever helping a poor German family. She never recovers her strength and dies within a few years.	Lizzie also contracted scarlet fever in this way, and died within two years of her illness (age twenty-two).
Amy March	Amy March is an artist from an early age, but does not make a living from it.	Abigail May Alcott was also an artist. She taught art (including art therapy, interstingly enough) for a few years in the early 1860s.
	Amy goes to Europe with an aunt to travel and study art.	May also went to Europe, three times (1870, ‘73 and ‘77) with the funding from Louisa’s book.
	(SPOILER ALERT) Laurie falls in love with Amy in Europe (she’s always loved him) and they marry there. They come back and live in Laurie’s rich house. They have one frail daughter, Beth.	May met her husband Ernest Nieriker in London, 1877, and they married the next year, in London (she was 38, he 22!). Her husband was not rich, but supported her art and worked hard (tobacco merchant and violinist!). They moved to Paris, where May primarily lived after her marriage. They had one daughter, Louisa May Nieriker (“Lulu”), who was raised by Louisa Alcott, as May died within two months of her daughter’s birth.
Theodore Laurence	Laurie is the adopted son and brother of the March family.	Laurie did not exist. :( BUT, Louisa did base him on two different friends of hers: Alf Whitman, whom she met in, and was friends with all her life (she wrote him letters and called him “Dolphus” because they’d acted together in a play where he played “Dolphus”). Also Ladislas “Laddie” Wisnieski, a Polish man she met in Europe and had a brief, but close relationship with as she stayed in Europe. He was a prankster and a piano player. Both boys were younger than her, and she felt very motherly towards them, just like Jo does towards Laurie.

If this interests you to look further, I suggest looking up Louisa's writings on being a Civil War nurse, the family's time at Fruitlands, and Amos Alcott's educational methods as I found all three subjects fascinating.

I really liked Little Women. I definitely want to read it again, and, when I have time, to read Little Men and Jo's Boys. There were many great quotes from the book, several of which which unfortunately I read over and couldn't find again, either in my copy or on GoodReads. Here are a few I did find:

~

Now and then, in this workaday world, things do happen in the delightful storybook fashion, and what a comfort that is.

~

[spoken by Marmee, to her eldest girls] "I'd rather see you poor men's wives, if you were happy, beloved, contented, than queens on thrones, without self-respect and peace."

~

[C]hildren should be children as long as they can.

~

[spoken by Marmee, to Meg, after Meg has married and had twin babies] "Go out more, keep cheerful as well as busy, for you are the sunshine-maker of the family, and if you get dismal there is no fair weather."

(I liked that one because it expresses very well how the mother is really the hub of every household. If she isn't happy, no one else is either.)

~

For with eyes made clear by many tears, and a heart softened by the tenderest sorrow, she recognized the beauty of her sister's life — uneventful, unambitious, yet full of the genuine virtues which 'smell sweet and blossom in the dust', the self-forgetfulness that makes the humblest on earth remembered soonest in heaven, the true success which is possible to all.

Do I recommend this book, and to whom? I definitely recommend Little Women to males and females of all ages. I think it would make a good read-aloud to children but would be more appreciated by age 10 and up.