A Tale of Two Cities - Charles Dickens

I first read A Tale of Two Cities when I was fourteen years old for my freshman year English class. I can distinctly remember sitting on the couch in the family room, contentedly reading and finishing the book a good week before we were supposed to. I fell in love with it then and there. 

Ten years passed and recently I heard that a cousin of mine who is in high school himself was having trouble with the book and my uncle wanted me to tutor him. I was happy to do it but I realized that I should probably reread the book myself as years had passed and I only barely remembered the plot. 

A Tale of Two Cities tells the story of the Manette family and those around them in the period before and during the French Revolution. At the beginning of the novel, Doctor Manette is freed from the Bastille after eighteen years of imprisonment. He is reunited with his daughter who is eighteen herself and thought her father dead. Years pass and they find themselves tangled up in the dealings of Charles Darnay, a young Frenchman who is on trial for espionage against England. Different events in the lives of all the characters fluctuate and coalesce until the dramatic conclusion, set against the backdrop of the Reign of Terror.

Now, I'm not a huge Dickens fan. I think he can tell a good story and create some interesting characters but he is ridiculously wordy. Now, of course, we all know why he was wordy (he was paid by the word) but that doesn't make it any easier to get through. A Tale of Two Cities is one of his shorter novels, the version I read was only 270 pages. Most Dickens are monsters. Thus, I think it's actually a pretty good first Dickens, a chance to stick your toe in and see if you like it.

The other great thing about Tale is that it is actually a compelling story and is tightly woven so that every detail fits in to the end and there's no meandering through the middle of the novel, as Dickens is prone to. Although the sentences take their time to get to the point, the novel is quite atmospheric and filled with forward momentum. Years are passed by in a few paragraphs to get on to the next dramatic point. There's no lingering.

Of course, the other thing I love about Tale is Sydney Carton, one of the characters. A once promising young lawyer that has had too much adventure and drink, he ends up taking the case of Charles Darnay when we first meet him. He and Darnay become foils for each other, perfect reflections with opposite characteristics. Although Darnay may be the better man in theory, I have been in love with Carton since I first finished the book. He's the anti-hero, the man who wishes he could do better but knows his best days are behind him. Carton absolutely shines in the second half of the book. He is definitely the best part of the narrative.

I cried the first time I finished Tale of Two Cities and I cried this time, too. The last two chapters have some absolutely beautiful moments that are poetically written. The part where Sydney takes the woman's hand, Sydney's thoughts that end the novel. That is what story writing should be about, moments like those. 

If you're a Dickens fan but never made it around to Tale, I'm sure you'll love it. If you're someone who never really read Dickens, give it a try. It's a shorter read and a good story. It may be a bit wordy but it has good things to say.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - Ken Kesey

I'm sure you've heard of this book. If you haven't, you've probably heard of the 1975 movie with Jack Nicholson. It won all the Academy Awards that year and very rightfully so. It's a very good movie, funny and moving and an interesting look at the problems within the psychiatric systems of the early 1960s. What you may not realize is that this amazing movie is based on an equally good book.

In 1960s Oregon (around The Dalles), a man named Randle Patrick McMurphy finds himself sentenced to a mental hospital. He's not that upset about it, though, because he came from jail on assault and battery charges and figures that it will be much nicer spending his sentence in the relative comforts of the psychiatric hospital rather than prison. He comes on to the ward and meets a lot of interesting characters: Harding, a smart man who's probably just repressed, Billy Bibbit, who has a childish charm, a stutter and mother issues, Cheswick, a loud mouth with a good heart but no followthrough, Chief Bromden, a tall half-Native American man who pretends to be deaf and mute, along with many others. None of them seem that bad to McMurphy and he begins pal-ing around with them.

What McMurphy didn't expect, however, was Nurse Ratched. Nurse Ratched rules the ward with an iron fist, using subtle shaming techniques and enforcement of rules to take almost all personal liberty and just plain old will to live out of the patients. She is not happy to find the rebellious and impulsive McMurphy on her ward and the two spend most of the novel butting heads, Ratched trying to keep control and McMurphy trying to buck the rules for himself and the other patients.

The story is mostly the same in the movie as it is in the book. All the same events happen, if in a bit of a different order. However, one very interesting difference between the film and the novel is that the novel's narrator is Chief Bromden. Instead of having an omniscient or limited third person narrator, everything is told through Chief Bromden's point of view. Although he's an important character in the film, this puts him in a much more prominent place for the novel. The reader learns more about him and his past and there's a lot more depth as a result. The Chief, having been thought of as deaf and dumb for so many years, has the advantage that everyone speaks normally around him, unafraid that he'll be able to repeat anything he hears. As such, he's a great narrator for the piece.

The only real problem I had with the book was the style it was written in. Chief Bromden's a good man but he's also been in a mental ward for almost twenty years when the novel begins. He also hasn't spoken for years. As such, he's speech patterns and ways of narrating are twisting, turning thoughts jumbled with half crazy ideas and observations that have to be taken with a dozen grains of salt. Although it's an interesting and very affecting style, it's also hard to decipher at times. There would be moments when I would read a whole page and then realize I had no idea what was going on. It takes a good deal of focus to keep up with the novel at times. It's worth it but it is hard work.

The story itself is completely immersing. Each of the characters are both easy to like and then completely foreign as their own mental powers overcome them. I'm also always a sucker for the kind of stories where the villain of the piece is a character that has power of authority over the main characters. I am absolutely terrified of movies where the 'bad guys' are the police or the government. Knowing that Nurse Ratched not only has the power to get them committed indefinitely but also can send them out for electroshock therapy and operations is terrifying. Having that kind of power over another human being is scary enough but in the hands of Nurse Ratched? *shiver*

Perhaps the most important thing about the whole story, and what makes it so powerful, is that it's based on Ken Kesey's own experiences working as an orderly in a mental hospital in California in the 1960s. Although the characters are not based on real people, obviously, all the experiences and ideas of the novel are grounded in truth and observation. This is what Kesey experienced and he felt so strongly about it, a classic was born. 

The movie is amazing and I highly recommend you take some time to watch it if you haven't seen it. The novel is very good as well. I think I prefer the film but the book is definitely worth a read, especially if you like the Chief. It's a powerful story that will stick with you long after it's over.

Cold Comfort Farm - Stella Gibbons

Do you ever have those books that you know you should read because you'd really like them but you just never seem to get around to them? That's how I've always felt about Cold Comfort Farm. I would pass it in Waterstones almost every time I went, look down at it, think 'I should read that' and then move on to something else. It wasn't that I didn't want to read it; it was just that I'm easily distracted.

Last week, aware that I would need somethings to read on the train to Stratford (the reason I didn't update on Thursday), I decided to get some books out of my university library to read. Things that I wouldn't necessarily buy but that would be in the English department. As I wandered the shelves, looking for things that weren't super heavy but weren't critical reading essay collections either, I ended up with a stack that included Cold Comfort Farm. Since it was the thinest of the pile, I decided to start with that one. It was a good choice.

Cold Comfort Farm tells the story of Flora Poste, a young girl around nineteen or twenty who finds herself orphaned by parents that she really didn't know well in the first place. Not very distressed, she stays with her friend in town and writes to a bunch of relatives, trying to find someone who will take her in. Although everyone graciously offers, Flora decides to take up her cousin Judith's letter, thinking that living on a farm in Sussex will be quite an adventure. 

Of course, Cold Comfort is not at all what Flora expects and at the same time, is exactly what she thought. Her cousin Judith keeps apologizing about a wrong her husband did Flora's father but won't speak on what it is, Amos is a fiery preacher who enjoys telling the congregation that they're all sinners, Seth is a womanizer who secretly loves the talkies, Reuben just really wants to run the farm and Elfine spends all day running through the meadows and hills to the beat of her own drummer.

As this book is a parody of the rural farm novels that were popular at the time it was written (1932), this is a very funny book. Even if you're not familiar with the idea of the stock farm novel (and it's completely understandable if you aren't), it's still plenty funny on its own. Watching Flora dealing quite admirably with these ridiculous characters is always entertaining. Plus, Gibbons's hilarious and quite timely writing style really adds to the story. There's just something about the way people wrote in the thirties that pulls you right into the time period and that's very present in this novel, despite it being set in the "near future." You can hear that early twentieth century sensibility coming through the minute Flora sets eyes on Elfine dancing about like a sprite and remarks that she really should try blue because light green is nice but doesn't go well with Elfine's coloring. 

Cold Comfort Farm is a very enjoyable and quick read. It isn't deep or dark or probing but it's fun and light and sure to put a smile on your face. I dare you not to enjoy it.

P.S. It also has a lovely movie adaptation that was made in 1995 starring Kate Beckinsale, Ian McKellan, Stephen Fry and (my favorite) Rupert Penry-Jones as the young Dick Hawk-Monitor. I whole-heartedly endorse it.

The Turn of the Screw - Henry James and Florence & Giles - John Harding

I've chosen to review these two books together as they are clearly intertwined, one influencing the other. Basically, if there were no Turn of the Screw, there couldn't be a Florence & Giles. And that would be a tragedy.

I'm sure you've all heard of Turn of the Screw, if you didn't have to read it for school at some point. It's Henry James's most famous work, the tale of a young governess sent to watch over two children in the country who either becomes haunted by spirits or slowly goes insane, your choice. I treated myself to this book a few months ago when visiting a friend who works at Hatchards (a dangerous game to play) and was quite excited to read it. It sounded just up my alley. 

Disappointingly, I could barely get through it. I would have to read another to be sure but I don't think I really like Henry James's style. He is quite concerned with using as many words as he can fit in and generally going on rants where it is quite easy to zone out. While I was reading, I found myself wondering if there was really a plot or if I was just missing details that were somewhere I couldn't decipher. After reading a few articles on the text after finishing, though, (stereotypical academic here), I found that no, I had gotten everything. I just wasn't impressed, I guess.

It is remarkable, telling a story from three distances away and using this distancing effect to play upon the perceptions of the reader. And the idea of a psychological study in that time period of a young governess is a rather good one. I just couldn't really get into it.

Fortunately for me, on a whim, I picked up Florence & Giles and I fell in love.

Florence & Giles is basically Turn of the Screw from the children's point of view. It follows the same basic plot line: Two children, a brother and sister, live in a large estate in the country with their house keeper and a few servants. The first governess sent to them dies in strange circumstances and the second governess is sent later. There may or may not be ghostly things going on in the background. Heck, even the main characters' names (Florence and Giles) are reworkings of the children's name from Screw (Flora and Miles.)

The difference in this novel is the protagonist; instead of following the governess, we get first person point of view from Florence, the big sister of the pair. A young girl that has been teaching herself to read from the library in secret, her narrative style is lovely as she enjoys 'shakespeare-ing' words, or just making up words to suit her own purpose. It adds a delightful narrative voice to the novel, as well as establishing an untrustworthy narrator. 

The plot, while largely the same as Turn of the Screw, makes detours as in this case, it is the governess who is potentially evil and the children who have to look out for themselves. Florence is the one who starts seeing eerie things and causes us to question what she's telling us. In fact, one thing I love about the novel is that it never flat out tells you anything. All of it is in little hints and throwaway lines. You have to construct the plot from the bits that Florence gives you.

I could not put Florence & Giles down and raced through it. It really keeps you questioning until the last page. The morality and logic that Florence comes up with and the narrative voice that you get wrapped up in is pitch perfect. I adored this book.

And that is why I have to say a big thank you to The Turn of the Screw. Because, despite the fact that I never could really get into you, it's thanks to you that we have Florence & Giles. And that's a thing to be glad about.

The Woman in White - Wilkie Collins

I've always wanted to read The Woman in White because somehow I got it into my head that it was a ghost story. Spoiler Alert: It's not. A friend and I both decided to read it over Christmas Break (although I somehow didn't actually read until a few weeks ago) and this gave me a perfect excuse to finally pick up a book I had always been curious about. 

To tell the truth, I wasn't entirely sure what I was picking up when I started reading The Woman in White. I find it nice, though, to not really be sure what you're reading. It gives it an even bigger air of surprise. The beginning of The Woman in White does not disappoint, either. A young art teacher gets a job through a connection of a friend and as he walks to the train station early one morning, he meets a mysterious woman dressed all in white. She begs him the way to London but makes him promise to ask her nothing. And without another word, the woman vanishes.

How is this not a ghost story, you ask? I know! Still, though, there are definitely enough twists and turns to delight any reader. I know I have given you absolutely no idea of the plot but I think you appreciate it more that way. There are three parts to the novel, the first mostly through the eyes of Mr. Hartright (don't you love old names?), the drawing teacher mentioned previously. The second part is much different from the first and the third altogether different still but I realize that mentioning the narrators will spoil a bit who dies and who doesn't so perhaps I'll leave that out.

It's an old book so there is a bit of wordiness and ethnic stereotyping to be aware of. Nothing is particularly bad, however, and the evil Italian count is evil more because of himself than because of the fact that he is Italian. In fact, I think he may be my favorite character. There is just something delicious about a character that is as sneakily evil as Count Fosco.

This is definitely not a book you get hooked on and can't put down. It's very wordy and it takes itself very importantly. However, there is definitely enough of a mystery for you to constantly want to know what is going to happen. It's a long book at over five hundred pages and around page two fifty or so, I really started to get into it. I don't know if my friend Lizzy ever did. It may not be a page turner but it's not the kind of book you would put down out of boredom, either. It's interesting enough to keep going.

There's intrigue, evil husbands, evil wives, mysterious disappearances, secret spies, expeditions to the new world, a creepy wing of the mansion and everything you expect from the best gothic novels. If that sounds good to you, pick it up.

[023] The Catcher in the Rye - J.D. Salinger

The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger

What the Back of the Book Has to Say:

Nothing. It's just a reprint of the art from the cover of the book.

Why I Picked It Up:

Another 'classic' I had never actually read in school.

What I Think:

As you probably remember from the rant I went on during the Of Mice and Men post, I'm not the biggest fan of American literature. I tend to find it boring, long and full of "American-ness" that has been beaten into me so much during school that I don't want to read it in my off time. That was the first bone of contention I had with this book-- the simple fact that it is categorized as an "American Classic."

Problem number two for me was the introduction I had to the book. I had it in my bag because I knew I was going to finish Upon a Dark Night that day so I pulled it out with only a few stops to go on my train line. Because of this, I only managed to read about the first six pages or so before my stop arrived. The first six or so pages introduced me to a first person narrator (oh no) and a boy who didn't apply himself in school, along with swearing every third word.

My next encounter with the book was the next day as I sat down to read it in my hour break between my Preschool Advanced class and my private lesson. I had been developing a headache all day and it came crashing down on me during that break. I think I managed to read one page. On the train ride home, I couldn't read, couldn't listen to my iPod, only managing to close my eyes and try to ignore the racket of the train and the chattering of the people around me. 

All these things set me up to hate this book. All of these things, as well, were not in a single way the novel's fault.

I had been emailing with one of my favorite professors, the illustrious BDH, the night of the awful headache and threw in at the end of the email that I was reading Catcher in the Rye. I only asked "Is he going to be this insufferable all the way through?" I got an almost immediate reply.

"Yes, but he's loveable, too--he's facing the world of the 50s, which is actually the early 60s, and it is/was an insufferable world, which is why Salinger wrote the book--he is distorted by the times--he cannot be open or free, nor can any one else. BUT, good news, he heralds the coming revoution--he dares to be different.  He is Kerouac and his buddy "on the road!"  it's the beginning of a new era--after that try anything else of Salinger, too--Nine Stories, Franny & Zooey, Raise High the Roof-beam, Carpenter! and others--you'll like it."

As I trust and respect BDH's opinion, I tried to go back to the book with a more open mind. After all, all my previous problems with it really were my own hangups.

Well, thank heavens that I listened to BDH's email because I think I loved it. I say "I think" because I'm still not one hundred percent sure how I feel about it but that phrase "he's loveable, too" really stuck in my head as I started to really get into the novel. It's completely true. Holden Caulfield is insufferable but it's because he's so mixed up. Deep down, he's a good kid-- he cares about women, children and people in general. He just can't cope with the adult world or indeed, pretty much any of his surroundings.

Holden hates change, he hates maturity and, obviously, he hates "phonies" and this two day journey around New York with him sees him try to run away from his problems, only meeting with disillusion at every turn. It's bleak but at the same time, it's completely relatable, especially to a twenty-three year old that has just graduated into the real world. 

I hear that this is a book you either love or you hate and I think I sit on the 'love' side of that bandwagon. I can easily understand why people hate it, though-- probably got as hung up on Holden as I did in the beginning. This is a book, I think, that you have to try a little harder at, play with that first person narrator a bit and dig around the edges of the information that he drops and leaves, never looking back. It's not open and shut (as nothing but a romance novel should be) but it's accessible. 

And it's official: there is an American Classic that I enjoy. What am I going to do with myself?

[017] Doctor Zhivago - Boris Pasternak

Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak

What the Back of the Book Has to Say:

"On they went singing 'Eternal Memory', and whenever they stopped, the sound of their feet, the horses and the gusts of wind seemed to carry on their singing..."

Doctor Zhivago is the epic novel of Russia in the throes of revolution and one of the greatest love stories ever told. Yuri Zhivago, physician and poet, wrestles with the new order and confronts the changes cruel experience has made in him and the anguish of being torn between the love of two women.

Why I Picked It Up:

Yet another misguided attempt to better myself by reading the classics.

What I Think:

Personally, I feel like I deserve some kind of special accolade for having read all of Doctor Zhivago. The entirety of the novel feels like you're reading a "classic." It revolves around Yuri Zhivago, true, but it encompasses eras of Russian history, from the Tsarist beginnings of the early 1900s to the end of the 1940s and World War II. Because of the scope of the novel, it makes it incredibly difficult to read for many different reasons.

The first reason is, to be quite honest, my own ignorance of early twentieth century Russian history. Of course, Pasternak lived through everything he described in the novel and there is an assumed sense that you know what the current regulations are, who each of the various fighting armies or militias are, and indeed, even what the year is. I always thought I knew a bit about Russian history but this novel has opened my eyes to the fact that everything I know about said history is from popular movies that I have watched and clearly that is not enough. 

The secondary reason this book is nearly impossible is Russian names. In the edition I read, the page after the table of contents is a page devoted to "Principle Characters in the Novel" with a name division of three columns: "surname", "name and patronymic" and "diminutive". Any character can be called by any three of those names. Our main character is referred to as Zhivago, Yury Andreyevich, Yura, or Yuri. At least most of his start with "Yu" so you can figure it out. Other main characters are fairly easy. But where it gets hard is with all the secondary characters which leads us to our third reason.

There are so many secondary characters and Pasternak expects you to remember every single one of them. Despite the list after the contents, there are still at least ten or so characters that the author clearly expects you to recognize immediately but usually just leave you with that strange 'I know I should be making a connection' feeling in the back of your head. Pasternak is obviously trying to make a theme of connectedness and fate with the way characters appear in and out, hundreds of pages apart but it is ultimately just frustrating. What you actually need to read this novel is a constantly updating chart with names, references and maybe even page numbers. 

Getting past all these details, there is still the plot itself. The cover of my edition tells me that this is "one of the greatest love stories ever told." I am annoyed with this. The way love is portrayed in this novel is the way all old fashioned, epic love stories tend to make it: the main characters meet and despite the reader never actually seeing them fall in love, they somehow fall into that state and then are passionately and painfully in love. It's tiring, especially as it seems to come from nowhere and catches both of our "destined" lovers in adulterous affairs.

What really annoys me about Lara and Yury's deep and powerful love is that they are both obviously still in love with their respectful partners, despite also having an all-consuming love for each other. I understand the way the author tries to justify their love by showing how their spouses came out of childhood views of responsibility but the two of them clearly still feel for their significant others. They're also both parents and Lara, in particular, seems to be leaving a bad impression for her daughter, Katya. 

And beyond all of that, towards the end of the novel, Yury takes on a third relationship with a girl named Marina and has children with her. Tonya and Lara are vaguely understandable as a dutiful love versus a passionate love but to bring in a third girl? I was slightly offended, to be honest. 

I'm not even going to get into the strange Biblical undertones that come out of nowhere sometimes and the forty pages of poems ostensibly written by Zhivago in the back of the book. Suffice it to say, I tend to dislike poems and these did not change my mind. 

All in all, the novel definitely felt like an epic but keeps a distance from the reader that is nigh impossible to bridge. Read it if you fancy an intellectual exercise but I don't know if you'd really want to read it for pleasure. I definitely wouldn't again. 

[014] Of Mice and Men - John Steinbeck

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck

What the Back of the Book Has to Say:

In this parable of commitment, loneliness, hope and loss John Steinbeck has created a powerful and moving portrayal of two men striving to understand their own unique place in the world. Clinging to each other in their loneliness and alienation, George and his simple-minded friend Lennie dream, as drifters will, of a place to call their own. Eventually they find work on a ranch in the Salinas Valley. Yet their hopes are doomed as Lennie, struggling against extreme cruelty, misunderstand and feelings of jealousy, becomes a victim of his own strength.

Why I Picked It Up:

Another in the series of 'classics I have yet to actually read.'

What I Think: 

Of Mice and Men is another one of those books that, even if you've never read it, it's enough in society's consciousness that you basically know what happens anyway. Man and his friend who is rather simple travel the West in search of employment during the 1930s. Despite their strong friendship, there is a tragic event and George has to make a tough choice. You either read it in high school or your best friend did and complained about it to you (I was the latter). 

To be honest, after I finished the last page of the book, I set it back into my purse and blinked. All I could think was "....this is it? This is the quintessential high school novel? No wonder my class skipped it." 

Now, I'm not trying to make an overall judgment on Steinbeck with this. No one is saying that the overall plot is flawed. The main theme of the book, of a man having to make the ultimate decision in perhaps one of the hardest eras of American history, is very tragic and rings true when you read the ending. The last ten or so pages are very powerful. However, the way the book meanders to get there, how incredibly short it is and just it's overall composition left me completely underwhelmed.

This may, in fact, be partly my fault. I admit that I am extremely prejudiced against "American classic fiction". I know this is vaguely blasphemous as I am American myself but I cannot think of a single American novel regarded as a "classic" that I have ever enjoyed. I don't even like our original poets (don't even get me started on Whitman) but then again, I'm not a big poetry person. 

Of Mice and Men, unfortunately, fulfills every stereotype I have of a typical American classic: hard lives on farms with lots of regional accents and brown. This is my mental image when I think of American literature and this is everything that Steinbeck's novel is. I understand that that was the situation that he was writing in, that this was published in 1937 during the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl era but, quite frankly, it has just never been my cup of tea.

I also cannot stand when authors write in a dialect. While I understand that it is part of character formation, I can stand it for awhile but a whole novel of characters speaking in dialect just gets on my nerves. It's like reading in a bizarre code, making you pay more attention but also making you really wish the characters would just shut up. They say that only really great writers can write in dialect and have it work. To be honest, I have yet to read a novel where I appreciated writing in accents. We'll see if it shall ever happen. 

The characters in Of Mice and Men are intriguing, to be sure, and very intelligent creations in their own right. The only problem is that the novel is so short that I hardly felt like I'd experienced anything when it ended. I never got a chance to really care about any of them so it made the tragic ending a little less painful. Of course, while writing this paragraph I've thought up several reasons why Steinbeck would choose to keep their histories and personalities more vague (a comment on the coming and going of the times, on the low value of human life, or simply making it a more everyman tale) but I'm going to stick with my first impression. 

All in all, I can understand why this book is taught in high school. It is a good introduction into literary analysis and character study. However, I do not see why it would be read outside of the ninth grade. This seems like a book that should be taught and not read.

[013] Death in Venice - Thomas Mann

Death in Venice by Thomas Mann

What the Back of the Book Has to Say:

Death in Venice tells how on a visit to Venice the writer Gustav von Aschenback encounters a young boy by whose beauty he becomes obsessed. Bewitched and agonized, he desires to please ...

Using the stifling atmosphere of Venice to heighten the unbearable sense of oppression, Thomas Mann has created a sensitive and haunting portrayal of blind passion.

Why I Picked It Up:

Although (to be honest) I had never heard of it before, it looked like a book I should read, perhaps one of those classics I was trying to discover. It was also thin and did you read that back cover? Sounds super interesting. Or weird.

What I Think:

Despite the image I try to perpetuate about myself, there is one deep dark secret I hold, something that should never be uttered as an English major: I think most of the "classics" tend to be rather boring. 

I think, deep down, a lot of English majors probably agree with me; I know A does. Of course, after I read a few essays on them or discuss them in a large group, I usually come to at least respect the novel, if not actually see the good points and kind of like it. However, on my first read-through, there is a good chance I'll shrug it off with a "meh." 

In my defense, there are a lot of classics that I do adore and loved upon first read (A Tale of Two Cities comes to mind) but there is also an alarming number (in my mind, at least) that did not pass muster. This short story, as I don't think it's long enough to be even a novella, belongs to the second group.

Venice tells the tale of an old author who goes to Venice on a spur of the moment vacation. While on this trip, he encounters a young boy in his hotel that he becomes fixated on. Although they only interact fleetingly, his entire viewpoint becomes centered on this boy and while Venice slowly comes to pieces around him, he contemplates his life in relation to what he idealizes this boy to be. 

Regardless of whether you consider it a good or bad story, it is most definitely interesting, in plot at least. The idea of this old man forming a connection, if one-sided, to a young boy which throws his life into disarray, is a stunning image. When I think about it, I picture an old man in the foreground, perhaps sitting on a chair, watching an young boy in one of those 1900s bathing suits prancing on the beach. It is a fantastic visual.

The only problem, for me at least, is that there doesn't seem to be much story connected to the idea. I couldn't really tell you much of the actual plot because I seem to have forgotten it. I remember the writer and the boy, I remember the slow descent of death upon Venice but I don't remember anything anyone actually did. This is a bad sign. 

There is an amazing amount of symbolism in this story. So much so, in fact, that sometimes I felt more like I was reading a parable than a story, something I didn't want. Now, I take my symbolism with a grain of salt, normally. It's in every book and sometimes it's interesting and sometimes it's over the top but for the most part, it's easy to get past or focus on, depending on which you feel like. There was too much to wade past in this story which was annoying enough. It became even more annoying once I looked up some essays and notes on the story after finishing.

This story is sort of autobiographical. The author actually went on vacation to Venice around the same time as the fictional author and did, indeed, stay at a hotel (with his wife!) that was also attended by a family with a young boy with a strikingly similar name to the main boy in Venice. In fact, researchers managed to track down who the boy was and shared with him the story, based vaguely on him, when he was older. He was only eleven at the time of the Venetian vacation.

Finding out that the story was semi-autobiographical makes the symbolism even more aggravating to me. I don't mind symbolism when everything is fictional but I hate when people try to make facts into symbols. I appreciate what the author was trying to do but it always turns me off when I can go "or the man just happened to have red hair and you remembered it like that." Not very English major-y of me, I admit but I am a human with limits.

I think I will end this review with one of the bullet points I have in my notes. I take notes after I finish books in case I can't write the review right away (I'm writing this one about three months after finishing the book) and sometimes I think my bullet points are wittier than these blog entries are. In any case, I think this quote sums all my feelings up perfectly:

"No sympathy for any characters, if you can call them that. Reading it is like knowing something big and dramatic is going on but not really knowing what or caring."

Agreed, Past!Molly. Agreed.

[011] Lord of the Flies - William Golding

Lord of the Flies by William Golding

What the Back of the Book Has to Say:

At the dawn of the next world war, a plane crashes on an uncharted island, stranding a group of schoolboys. At first, with no adult supervision, their freedom is something to celebrate. This far from civilization they can do anything they want. Anything.

But as order collapses, as strange howls echo in the night, as terror begins its reign, the hope of adventure seems as far removed from reality as the hope of being rescued.

Why I Picked It Up:

This is the first in what will become a recurring series: classic books that I never actually read in school

What I Think: 

Lord of the Flies is one of those books that everyone has read. Even if you haven't actually sat down to read it, you've probably seen the movie or, at the very least, you know the basic plot: boys crash on a desert island, slowly go crazy, become savages. It's Hobbes's theory of the nature of mankind played out in a fictional parable. It's also, I've discovered, widely exaggerated.

Now, I'm beginning to wonder how many people in the world have actually read this novel. I went into it thinking that I knew exactly what was going to happen but, upon reading the last few pages, I discovered that my idea of the plot was more savage than what had actually happened in the book. In my mind, the boys became savages and cannibals. I very surely had it fixed in my mind that they ate Piggy. I don't know where that idea came from originally, but upon talking to A over Skype after finishing the book and relaying the story, she said "But they do." And she had read the book before. No cannibalism appears in the story but it seems that most of the world somehow got it in their minds that it happened. 

Maybe that's just more proof that this story is a classic: everyone thinks they know it and somehow embellishments have become some kind of warped canon that doesn't actually exist. Or maybe it's just a view into the minds of man and how they view this fable about boys returning to their most natural forms--it becomes something much more terrifying than it truly is. This isn't to say that terrible things don't occur in Lord of the Flies because they do, but it says something about society that we all seem to think they cross that last taboo.

The book itself is marvelous. It took me about ninety or so pages to really get into the plot but it quickly became a page turner. I don't think I could really summarize it any better than the back of the book did itself so I won't even try. All of the characters are fairly obvious tropes and personifications but they have enough individual personality that, despite knowing that Ralph stands for civilization, you still like Ralph as a person and that's a hard barrier to overcome in other works (I'm looking at you, Pilgrim's Progress). 

Of course, the symbolism is rather heavy handed but considering how often this book is taught in high school, it was honestly expected. However, despite the sometimes "hit you over the head with it" imagery, it was bearable to wade through. The story was interesting and exciting enough to stand on its own and pull you through.

I read the last four or so pages of the novel standing on the platform waiting for my train home after work one day and I admit that I was a little misty-eyed when I closed the book. I had never heard how the story ended, despite all I thought I knew about the plot, and the last few images the novel wove on that forlorn beach must have touched something I hadn't even realized. Despite being well known and almost cliche in modern society, there is something deeper in this book that hits on aspects of the human spirit and I don't think it would hurt, if you have some extra time on your hands, to sit down and give it a read-through. Just to see what you think.