Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad is a book I've been meaning to read 'for real' since my senior year in high school. It is the one of only two books I have ever been assigned and not read completely. (The other is A Diary of Anne Frank and I feel horribly guilty over that one)
So, I started Heart of Darkness for my AP English class, like I was supposed to, and then got bogged down in Conrad's endless description. So, I skimmed the rest, asked my English teacher for 'help' because I, 'didn't understand' the message, wrote my thesis paper, and got an A.:) No one ever knew.
But, I always felt like I hadn't been fair to Mr. Conrad's book. I owned my AP copy, it's not even 80 pages, and I figured I could just read it and mark it off my slate of unfinished (shameful) reads. I even hoped that if I gave it another chance I wouldn't hate it so much the second time.
Although it will never be one of my favorite books, I will say that Heart of Darkness was improved the second time around. I liked it much more this time (although that isn't saying much, since I loathed it the first). One of my earliest concerns with this book is the narrative voice. The narrator and the storyteller are two different people. People are sitting around a fire, listening to a man tell a story about his trip through the heart of the African Congo, and one of the men around the fire is telling it to us. It's weird, and it makes the descriptions and language that much stranger, because really... Even back then, who talks like that around a campfire?! I don't really see the point, and I thought it made the story more stilted than it needed to be.
I also felt that a lot of the book was superfluous, which in a 78 page book is a problem. Nothing really happens until the end of the book. Now, I'm perfectly willing to admit my part in this. I know that I read this book faster than I should have, and that I missed some of the important parts to the story. But, I don't care. I still found a lot of it dull, meandering and pointless.
There is a surprising amount of depth to this story. I missed it entirely the first time, because I was intentionally blocking out any meaning to the story, and I think I barely touched it this time, but I was impressed by what Conrad is able to convey in just 80 or so pages (closer to 40 or 50 if you consider that I felt the first half mostly irrelevant). But, once Kurtz becomes an important and active part of the story, I think you can learn a lot. Although I didn't love this book, and I doubt I ever will, I'd like to read it at least once more to try and glean more because I think there is more that this book could teach me.
I have a whole bunch of books I know that I should be reviewing right now, but I'm in one of those moods where I'm just not interested in doing anything that will require that much thought, and I'm tired, which right now translates into I'm not going to write anything nice/worthwhile, and most of the books I have in my review que are books that I really, really enjoyed. I don't want those reviews to be crappy, because these books deserve more than that. I thought about not doing anything for today, but I did that yesterday. I was browsing my bookshelves, and I saw my copy of Walden by Henry David Thoreau. I read Walden (or Walden Pond, depending on your copy) about a year ago and wrote up a short review on goodreads. I've been wanting to read and talk about more than just YA lately, and decided that now was as good a time as any.
So, in my title I ask if I'm in the majority or the minority. Meaning — I want to know if anyone who has read this book actually liked it. I've talked to a lot of people who like Thoreau. And, after conversing with them further, I discovered that all of them (except for one) were lying. At least a little. They had read excerpts of Walden or individual quotations and thought them to be insightful and thought-provoking. I agree. When taken one sentence at a time, after, of course, carefully screening for only those which inspire deep thought and meditation, Thoreau is just fine.
I read most of Civil Disobedience in HS as well as excerpts from Walden and I spent a few years thinking Thoreau was pretty hot stuff (literarily speaking of course...) . So, when I found a pretty faux-leather bound copy of Walden and Other Writings at a used bookstore, I grabbed it, and went home so excited to read it, thinking I was going to be so edified. And then, after I started reading it, I realized I was so bored. Thoreau takes 300+ pages to talk about spending 2ish years in the woods, and with the amount he rambled, I'm thinking 100 to 150 pages would have been better. He told stories that related to nothing. In the middle of a chapter about walking around, he's suddenly start spouting off about this dove/dog/man who were all searching for each other and then... and then... and then... nothing. No resolution. He even itemized how much it cost him to build his little home in the woods. (Or rather, how much it should have cost him, because I swear, everything he took with him was donated by someone else...)
Anyway, I could have gotten past the fact that Thoreau's life was a little dull, because really — he's spending 2 years in the woods with very little human contact, and no amenities. Don't get me wrong — I love the woods. I'm not gonna lie — I'd totally go live in the middle of the woods if I had the chance, although I'd make sure I took electricity and a flushing toilet with me... So, I could have forgiven that, and probably enjoyed this book a lot more if Thoreau didn't come off as so darn pompous and self-righteous. I'm kind of glad I never had to meet this man, because his writing makes him sound like one of the most condescending men I've ever come across. And, living in the woods for 2 years without the luxury of a doormat and then moving back to your original home does not make you qualified to tell me that my luxuries are the beginnings of my downfall into evil. He doesn't exactly say this, but it's pretty close and I definitely felt like Thoreau was talking/looking down on the rest of us. I might take Thoreau and his preachings about the benefits of an entirely simple life if he had always lived by Walden. But he didn't. He went home after a few years. But, he's still better than all the rest of us who invite evil into our lives. Bully for you Thoreau.
I understand that this opinion very possibly makes me sound like an uncultured, uneducated philistine. I mean really, Thoreau is one of the Transcendentalists, right up there with Hawthorne, Whitman, and Emerson. I get that... But, I don't care. I didn't enjoy Walden. It's entirely possible that I was simply in the wrong mood to read this type of literature/philosophy when I gave it a shot, but I don't think so. Because I own the book and doubt I'll be getting rid of it (it's pretty and looks great on my bookshelf) I'll probably give this a try again in a few years, when I'm older and hopefully wiser and all that great stuff. And, if I'm still blogging, I'll be sure and let all of you know about my new opinion, if it changes at all.
But I'm confused by all the 5 star ratings on Goodreads. Many more than I would have expected. The 4 and 5 star reviews strongly outweigh the negative reviews. So I wonder... Is there something that I'm missing? Or has the general population bought into the idea that they have to give the book a higher star rating to prove that they did, in fact, get it, as so many of us lesser people seem to not. Perhaps this paragraph doesn't make as much sense as it should... Although I was quite put off by Thoreau himself and his writing, I can see where the basic ideas of economy and simplicity could really resonate with someone. Perhaps, because I was raised to understand that living within my means and avoiding debt and extravagant lifestyles made this book superfluous to me, so I didn't feel it connect with me, but regardless. Whatever the reason I or you come up with, Walden was not for me.
So, I'll ask you again. Am I in the majority, or the minority on this one? How did YOU feel about Walden and Thoreau's writing in general?
We all know that there are myriads of great (and not so great) books that have been turned into movies, plays, animated cartoons, TV shows and etc. etc. etc. I always roll my eyes at people who respond to the question — How did you like that book? With some variation of, "Oh ya, I loved it! The movie was so great!" Gag. Really?! You just said that?! You just smeared the name of literature by telling me a book was great because you liked the movie?! (Ahem...) Well, the other day I shamefacedly realized that I was guilty of this myself. (Insert horrified gasp here) One of my fondest memories of Christmas, most beloved childhood memories and in my top 3 favorite Christmas stories was missing something...
A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens is one of the most recognized, well known, and cherished Christmas stories in existence. There are numerous versions and adaptations for both children and adults, in animation, live action or produced live on stage. You can find it serious or slightly comical or even as a musical. Some follow the original script closely while others use only a loose interpretation of the story. Whatever versions you've seen, most people are very familiar with the plight of the Cratchit family and Tiny Tim, the cold, miserly heart of Ebenezer Scrooge, and the eerie spirits who visit him during the night of Christmas Eve.
However familiar we are with the story, how many of us have actually read the book? I imagine not very many. It's included on BBC's The Big Read and I wonder how many people include it because of the story rather than the book itself. So, to avoid this horrible reader faux pas, I decided to pick up this favored story and read it for myself. It's a short book, more of a novella than a novel, and I already knew that I loved the story.
I did really enjoy reading this book and I'm glad I can now say that I've actually read it. However, I must admit that I am more in love with the idea of this book than its reality. It's a wonderful story, with a wonderful message and wonderful characters, but I didn't have the same emotional connection to the written story that I do to the various productions I've seen. I know that this is more due to past experiences and the relationship it has to my childhood than anything negative about the book. I loved the book and will definitely reread it in the future, but it's just not the same as watching Scrooge, the Musical or The Muppets.
The book places more emphasis on the characters and the realizations they make than just the story of Scrooge. Most movie or live productions emphasize Scrooge's discovery of the Christmas Spirit, and becoming a more generous person. I love that, and it is a very important part of the story. However, I love that reading the book offers more insight into why Scrooge became the way he did and the relationships he had with those around him.
It is a great story to invite the Christmas spirit and remember the true meaning of Christmas, but it is also a cautionary tale. Be careful the emphasis you place on money and things. It is usually more important to focus on the people in your lives than the things in your life and this story, no matter how you experience it is a great reminder of that.
Photos courtesy of Gary Benson, a scenic designer. For more images and more information, you can find him on Webshots here and he also blogs at Bascombe Mania. If you are interested in his photography, please contact him through one of the links provided.
The Trumpet of the Swan by E.B. White is one of those books I've been hearing about my whole life, and everyone who has ever read this has loved and told me that I have to read it because it is just so amazing. I read Charlotte's Web as a kid and really enjoyed it, so I fully expected to love this book.
I bought a really nice copy of it on impulse a couple years ago, because I just knew it would be awesome, and pretty copies of awesome books are great, right? I had a feeling it was going to be a while before I would get to it, so when Adam over at Roof Beam Reader started his 2011 TBR Reading Challenge, I thought it would be a great excuse to read this book.
So, I read the book. And, I didn't like it. I mean, it was okay, I guess. I actually really enjoyed the first couple of chapters, when the boy is our main character and the story is told by him and from his perspective. He goes camping in the wilds of Canada with his dad, and stumbles across a nesting pair of Trumpeter Swans, which are big, loud and beautiful. Being a nature and animal enthusiast, he does what he can to observe them and share a little part of their world. He's quiet and doesn't move as he observes the swans, because he doesn't want to alarm them, both because he doesn't want to threaten the home they have created for them and their eggs, but also because swans get downright nasty and you do NOT want to be on the receiving end of their territorial attacks.
And then we get a section from the swans point of view about this strange human boy who has invaded their space. But, it's kind of all right, because he just sits there, quietly, never moving. Just watching. So the swans get used to him. And then, a fox tries to attack the Mrs. and the boy saves her. So, they like the boy and allow him into their world, and when their chicks hatch, he is part of their lives also, at least for a few weeks.
If that was the only time we heard from the swans themselves, I would have been just fine. But it's not. The entire rest of the book becomes narrated by the swans and I didn't like it. They are ridiculous and far too human for me to believe any of it. And their understanding of the world is far too advanced for an animal. Like the son who cannot speak. He goes to school and learns to read and write on a little chalk board that hangs around his next. The teacher, of a first grade classroom, allowed a giant bird, notorious for its mean streak, into a classroom full of small children so it could learn to read, and it does.
And then even more craziness ensues, including the aforementioned swan learning how to play a magnificently beautiful trumpet, that more than makes up for the fact that he cannot 'trumpet' himself. Something has been wrong with his vocal cords since birth. But here's the things guys. I have played a trumpet. I know how they work. I know how hard you have to work to play one. And, if you don't have a working set of lips, you ain't getting any sound out of that thing. And if you can't depress the keys with your fingers, which takes more effort that the feathers on a wing could manage, you are vastly more limited in the notes you are able to play. So I didn't buy it.
I will admit right from the start that I want nothing but contemporary from my contemporary and realistic novels. I do not think there is any room for the abstract or unimaginable when I'm reading a book that I fully expect to be a realistic contemporary. If my book has impossibilities mixed in with it, I'm automatically more inclined to dislike it, and I didn't believe a single thing in this book after the swans took over the narration. And, it doesn't help that the father swan was one of the absolute most annoying characters I have ever read. He's full of ridiculous bluster, rambling pretension, and thoughts of inflated self, while his lady swan was very down to earth, practical and calm.
I feel bad that I didn't like this book, and I recognize there is a good chance I would have liked it a lot more if I had read it as a kid. But, I didn't. I read it now, and I didn't like it. The only thing that would possibly motivate me to read it again would be reading it aloud to my future kids someday.
Welcome everyone, with an especial welcome to Zohar! He is our very first guest blogger! I'm really excited to have him with us! Read is post, comment and let us both know what you thought, and then head on over to his site for a visit!
Bio:
Zohar is a father, husband and a new book blogger. He reads usually likes history and non-fiction books but generally reads everything he can get his hands on. His blogs features Pulitzer winning biographies, historical fiction, non-fiction and even graphic novels. You can find him at Man Of La Book
Post: ====================
My rating for Treasure Island — 5
About:
“Treasure Island” by Robert Louis Stevenson is an 1883 fictional adventurous and classic pirate story. The book follows Jim Hawkins, a young man, who has found a treasure map and with the help of friends hires a crew to find the treasure. But the crew has their own plans.
Thoughts:
I read "Treasure Island” by Robert Louis Stevenson as a young boy and always remembered it as one of my favorites. Recently, as part of a classics book club, I read it again.
The two main characters of the book, Jim Hawkins and Long John Sliver have certainly cemented themselves as two of the most intriguing and dimensional characters in literature. I was happy to reconnect with them almost as if they were old friends.
The first half of the book was a breeze to read, but the second half was a bit more difficult due to the pirate’s slang, cumbersome metaphors and tongue tied conversations. However, I quickly re-discovered that those quirks were part of the charm of the book. Even Jim Hawkins admits he has trouble understanding the narrative – so I wasn’t alone.
I read the Barnes and Noble classics version, which came with a fascinating biography of Stevenson especially regarding “Treasure Island”. The book was actually written for Stevenson’s stepson, after painting the island he started the novel and completed 15 chapters. Stevenson finished the book in Switzerland writing a chapter a day.
Unknowingly, Stevenson created much of the pirate lore which we have been accustomed to. The pirate speaking almost unintelligibly, a parrot on his shoulder, missing a foot and ready to double cross his best friends for a buck or two.
My biggest surprise upon reading “Treasure Island” as an adult was that I realized that the story is not about Jim Hawkins, but about Long John Silver. Granted that usually the villain in any book is usually more colorful and fun than the upstanding protagonist – but this discovery has taken by surprise. Silver’s moral ambiguity is well known but just how amoral the character is I never fully realized as a naïve child (even though I have become a naïve adult).
I was happy to discover that “Treasure Island” truly deserves its status as a beloved classic. The story is suspenseful and the adventure can be enjoyed by children of any age.
Synopsis:
In the mid 18th Century at a seaside village in south-west England Jim Hawkins, the young son of the keepers of the Admiral Benbow Inn, meets and old seaman named Billy Bones. Quickly Jim discovers that Bones is a pirate and that his old crewmates want Bones’ sea-chest.
Bones dies and Jim opens his sea-chest to collect the money owed to the inn – only to discover a mysterious oilskin packet. The packet is a detailed map of an island Jim, together with Dr. Livesey and Squire Trelawney, hire a crew to sail to the island.
But the crew are not the honest sailors they think they are and the sea-cook, Long John Silver, turns out to be the most dangerous one of them all.
