BookLust

A and Z March Through the Middle: Middlemarch Part II

2012-01-31T08:00:00.000-05:00

Heather and I have finished Part II of George Eliot's Middlemarch! For those of you who may not know, the lovely and fabulous and eloquent Zibilee and I are reading George Eliot's Middlemarch together over the next several weeks in a fairly meandering and highly unscheduled manner. Basically, our plan is to read one book (there are eight books that comprise the novel) and then discuss it and analyze it into submission so that our weary modern minds can understand it :-)

No, for real, this is how the novel is meant to be read! It came out in eight separate parts originally, and who are we to disagree with George Eliot, the woman so tough she wrote as a man? Plus, this way, we can get into great detail on each section of the book, instead of trying to converse on the whole 1,000+ pages of it all at once.

Based on the nature of our discussion, spoilers abound ahead! But so does pure literary conversational awesomeness, so weigh your choices and choose accordingly. The first half of our Part II discussion is over at Raging Bibliomania and goes into series detail on the men that populate Middlemarch, particularly the evil Mr. Bulstrode, so hop over there first and then come back here to catch up with the second half, where we discuss almost everybody else.

Let us commence.

Aarti: I really don’t like Lydgate at all. Like you said, he seems very full of himself and seems so entitled. In many ways, he reminds me of a typical guy at business school! He thinks he’s smarter than everyone else around him, that he deserves the great things that come to him, that women exist to be pretty and supportive, and that his ambition is the most important thing in the world. I really don’t think he’s someone who stands up for his ideals and beliefs, as proven by the Farebrother/Bulstrode episode, and I don’t think he is going to be very trustworthy going forward.

Heather: I also get the feeling that he is not trustworthy, and that he will compromise his integrity and morals to get further ahead. The basic reason for him siding with Bulstrode was to further his own interests, and to align himself properly, even though he knew it was wrong. I am sort of mad that Farebrother didn’t get disgruntled with him, because I know that I would have been raging mad had he done the same thing to me. If he is doing these things this early in the game, I wonder what he is capable of later. I was really mad at that, and had held out hope to the last that he wouldn’t make that decision, but he did, and it was disappointing.

Aarti: I think it’s hilarious how he thinks he’s not at all passionate, but utterly scientific, when it’s pretty obvious that he’s falling for another pretty face again :-)

Heather: He does think much of his scientific prowess doesn’t he? And it is funny the way that he thinks he is above the fray when it comes to being attracted to women, but that is sooo not the case! I actually think Eliot has made his character and his situation comically ironic in a way, because he is so ultra-serious about everything, his work, his methods, his opinions on women, but in reality he comes off as a flimsy and sketchy character who is laughable at best. Well, I should be laughing, but I’m not, because I think he has the potential to do serious damage, and has already had his finger in the pie on one occasion, so to speak.

Aarti: I know, I suppose I’d feel worse if I liked Rosamund, but I don’t like her much, either. They are very alike in how self-absorbed they are.

Heather: And it is in this second installment that I am seeing how truly funny Eliot can be! She has these pithy asides sometimes that just make me snort. I also like how adept she is at parsing out the intricacies of human behavior and she seems to know quite a bit about the human condition and the way people think. I like that her characters are so complex, and you get to know them obliquely as well as head on. She does have snappy dialogue, but also there is introspection and good depth to the people that she creates as well.

Aarti: I agree completely! Some lines I really liked this time around:

“You are very good, sir,” said Fred, with a fine sense of contrast between the words and the feeling.

One’s self-satisfaction is an untaxed kind of property which it is very unpleasant to find depreciated.

And Rosmund could say the right thing; for she was clever with that sort of cleverness which catches every tone except the humorous. Happily she never attempted to joke, and this perhaps was the most decisive mark of her cleverness.

I think so many of her characters are caricatures of people she must have known and interacted with in life, and I wish I knew who it was she was skewering. I have a feeling she and Jane Austen would have enjoyed several chats together about the life of a rural gentlewoman.

Heather: Oh, yes, an Eliot and Austen tea party would have been wonderful to attend! I also agree that a lot of these characters are like caricatures, which usually bothers me in modern fiction, but in this case, I think she is using these stereotypical people to represent large amounts of the populace at the time, so I think they are relevant in a way that modern caricatures are not. She is painting a story of society with people and the way they act. These are the players, but they are more than that. They are the message as well.

The whole business between Tyke and Farebrother is interesting too, because the special appointment really has nothing to do with either man, or who is more suited to the job, but the players behind them, and Bulstrode in particular. It’s almost like everyone is afraid to oppose him, and I can sort of see why, because he is an imposing figure, and he has everyone in the noose because he is well off and has lent everyone money. Nobody wants to have the well dry up on them, but it’s obvious to me that Farebrother really needs the appointment, and because he has basically been doing the job for free, he has to supplement his income with gambling. I do really like him, and think that he is pretty fair judge of character, and it’s unfortunate that he is getting thrown under the bus, though he doesn’t seem all that put out by it.

Aarti: That upset me a lot, too. I didn’t like how Lydgate tried to justify his vote by saying he didn’t like that Farebrother gambled and therefore he didn’t truly deserve the post. (I just really don’t like Lydgate!) I also think Farebrother is one of the best characters, in terms of kindness and understanding and empathy, so it would be nice to see him succeed. I suppose he isn’t ambitious enough, or he doesn’t have as strong a sense of self-preservation as the other characters do. He just wants to do his job, and do it well, but by doing that, he’s gained himself powerful enemies and is made to be less effective and helpful than he could be. It reminds me of a lot of bureaucratic organizations such as the police system (as described in The Wire) and the public school system- so many great people who just get mired in the politics and can’t get their jobs done.

Heather: I also was really interested in the bit about Dorthea’s honeymoon, because it seems as if the blinders are coming off, just not in the way that I thought that they would. The way that Eliot alludes to Casaubon’s brain being like a labyrinth instead of unencumbered and open like the sea seemed a very apt way of describing someone that has such a studious nature and is so opposed to natural feelings. I could clearly see that a misunderstanding on Dorthea’s part was occurring, but Casaubon had no such delicacy of feeling when it came to seeing what was wrong with her.

Aarti: There is a quote I am completely mangling that says something like, “There is no one so terrifying as an absolutely just man.” This really brings Casaubon to mind for me. He is so logical, so completely without feeling, so focused on the right and wrong of things as they relate to him, that he has no place for nuance, no gray areas, no forgiveness in him. And Dorothea, who is so passionate and inspired, is exactly the opposite. I don’t know how the two will ever understand each other.

Heather: I don’t think they understand one another at all. There is an absence of feeling in one, and an overabundance in the other, and that is something that cannot be bridged without serious contemplation by both parties, which is something that is just not happening between them. It’s pretty sad that Casaubon can’t be honest about how he has this lack of feeling towards not only his wife, but other humans in general, and it’s a pity that Dorthea is placing the blame upon herself. This marriage, and Ladislaw’s insertion of himself is an interesting, if expected development.

At the point when Ladislaw came in and saw her, I could sort of feel the sparks flying from him to her, but she seems to be one who is just naive about things like that. I can’t see how she doesn’t see that he is attracted to her, especially with all the invectives he is throwing down against her husband! I can already see that Casaubon is jealous, and that it’s going to be awkward when it comes down to brass tacks.

Aarti: I agree, she is totally clueless! And seems not to realize how her husband reacts to it all. There’s just no stealth in her at all, which I admire but think will come to really hurt her in the future. I can’t help but think that Dorothea is set up for so much sadness in life. I would feel sorrier for her if I didn’t think she seems like the sort who would really enjoy suffering as her way of atoning for sins or something.

Heather: Very astute observation. She does think she was designed for suffering, so I an fearful about what will come of all this with her and Casaubon.

That's all for this go-round, folks! See you for Part III :-)

Joints Musings: The Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands

2012-01-25T00:30:00.000-05:00

I've mentioned many times before that my great love for my Kindle stems almost entirely from the massive, obscure, esoteric and fabulous free library that is at my disposal through Project Gutenberg. I often look through the Gutenberg website specifically for memoirs written by women, and I came across The Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands in exactly this manner.

Mary Seacole was a mixed race woman born in Jamaica in the 19th century. She was married and widowed young, and never remarried, instead running several hotels throughout the Caribbean and becoming a very capable nurse. When the Crimean War started, she decided to take her healing skills to the front and took on a substantial loan to travel from Jamaica to England and then to the Crimea to open a hotel and tend the soldiers there. She was a very strong, determined and fascinating woman and I was so excited to read about her.

Ana from things mean a lot read the book, too, and below is the first half of our conversation about the book (and a much more general conversation that stemmed from the book but doesn't relate directly to it). For the second half of the conversation, visit Ana's blog- it has a lot of the good bits on a woman's place in Victorian England and the fine line between what we say drives us to do things and the motivation that actually does drive us. I hope you enjoy it!

Ana: There was something that took me aback me when I started reading The Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many Lands: a quick glance at Mary Seacole’s biography reveals that she lead a very unconventional life for a mid-Victorian woman. Her professional role as a nurse was one that fit into gender expectations of women as caregivers, but nevertheless she was a career woman rather than a family woman; she was widowed at a young age and didn’t marry again; she defied expectations and challenged gender and race stereotypes to achieve what she wanted. And yet in many ways she was a conventional Victorian.

Of course, I don’t mean to imply that anyone who deviated from social conventions throughout the course of history must had have a contemporary mindset - I realise that’s a simplistic and reductive way of looking at the past. But with Mary Seacole in particular, I was still a little surprised that having been the target of prejudice, for example, didn’t stop her from being prejudiced in her turn. But then again, that’s how we humans very often work; the world would be a much less complicated place if that wasn’t the case.

Aarti: Yes, you’re so right. She was pretty prejudiced against people from other countries, wasn’t she? I know I am probably just very sensitive about it, but I noticed in particular her dislike for Americans. Sadly, though, I am not surprised that being a target of prejudice didn’t stop her from being prejudiced. I think it’s been proven many times that those who are looked down upon by one set of people need to have another set of people to look down upon themselves. That sentence may not make any sense, but it’s been pointed out a lot when describing race relations in the US in particular. Jim Crow, for example, was really carried out by low-income whites, mostly so they could say, “Well, I may be poor, but at least I’m not Black.” And the economic make-up of the Tea Party today, for the most part, is poor people just above the poverty line who, if they had any sort of slip, would then qualify for and receive the benefits of welfare. But because they are not quite on welfare, they look down upon those who are and feel better about themselves.

In many ways, I think prejudice will always be with us as a way of dealing with our insecurities, and as a mixed race woman, I imagine Mary Seacole had many insecurities and those came out through prejudices.

Actually, what really surprised me about Mary was how English she considered herself. Really, she felt compelled to be a nurse in the Crimea so that she could be “useful to [her] own sons, suffering for a cause it was so glorious to fight and bleed for!” It really amazed me that she thought a lot of men hundreds of miles away from her, fighting a war that really didn’t have anything to do with her, were so close to her that she should help them. And she really believed that the war was a worthy one- glorious, even. That belief and pride in the English empire really just floored me.

Ana: Yes, that's an excellent point about her surprising sense of belonging to the British Empire. As I have a really hard time believing that a Creole woman would be welcomed with open arms everywhere in Victorian society, I'm guessing that that's something she just wouldn't admit to - perhaps out of fear, perhaps out of defiance. Maybe her way of saying "I belong, whether or not you think I do" was to act as though there was no question whatsoever about whether she did. I think the only time when she even comes close to acknowledging racism is in this passage, about The Crimea Fund's refusal to sponsor her journey:

The disappointment seemed a cruel one. I was so conscious of the unselfishness of the motives which induced me to leave England—so certain of the service I could render among the sick soldiery, and yet I found it so difficult to convince others of these facts. Doubts and suspicions arose in my heart for the first and last time, thank Heaven. Was it possible that American prejudices against colour had some root here? Did these ladies shrink from accepting my aid because my blood flowed beneath a somewhat duskier skin than theirs? Tears streamed down my foolish cheeks, as I stood in the fast thinning streets; tears of grief that any should doubt my motives—that Heaven should deny me the opportunity that I sought. Then I stood still, and looking upward through and through the dark clouds that shadowed London, prayed aloud for help. I dare say that I was a strange sight to the few passers-by, who hastened homeward through the gloom and mist of that wintry night. I dare say those who read these pages will wonder at me as much as they who saw me did; but you must all remember that I am one of an impulsive people, and find it hard to put that restraint upon my feelings which to you is so easy and natural.

But of course, even here she's very tentative, and them immediately calls herself "foolish".

Another thing that came to my mind as I thought about this some more was the example of many Victorian feminists: they were revolutionary several ways, and yet surprisingly stiff and proper in others, especially when it came to sexuality. I’ve read some sources that suggest that one of the factors that contributed to this was their knowledge that if they wanted to be taken seriously at all, they couldn’t afford to be unconventional in more ways than one. To be able to succeed as activists, they had to be absolutely proper and respectful in all other areas of their lives. I wonder if to some extent that was also the case with Mrs Seacole - I wonder if she picked her battles and avoided stirring the pot in more ways than necessary, lest she lose everything she fought for.Do you have any thoughts to share on this? Did the facts of Mary Seacole’s life lead you expect a different sort of person too?

Aarti: Oh, that’s such an interesting (and sad) idea - that Victorian women had to choose the ways in which they were unconventional. I suppose that is still pretty true to this day, except that our definition of convention has broadened a lot. I think what frustrated me about this book was that we got so little of Mary Seacole in it. So much of the book was her just listing all the accolades she’d gotten from men in the field. It was so funny, really, that she kept telling us that she wasn’t the bragging sort, but then half of her journal was just about how amazing everyone thought she was.

I wanted more of Mary herself. She must have faced racism while acting as a nurse- why doesn’t she ever mention that? And she was a woman far from home, in completely alien circumstances - why don’t we get any deeper feelings from her? What did she do for fun? Who were her friends? Did she leave the Crimea still believing that the war was fought for a glorious and wonderful reason? Did she still think of herself as English? Did she feel that everyone else considered her English? Was she lonely, probably being the only person for miles and miles around who looked the way she did? I just wanted so much more depth than she gave us, and we got nothing.

I think you could be very right about Victorian women in general and Mary Seacole in particular. Maybe she wrote this journal to fight her battle - Yes, I’m a colored woman from Jamaica, but I have useful skills and I am going to TELL you how I helped your people in a way that very few others could have. In a way, then, the journal is her vindication and in that way, it makes sense that she left out any of her deeper feelings and resentments and dismay- she didn’t want people to judge her as unpatriotic or unwomanly, but wanted her story and accomplishments to stand out as the only things of import. Which I suppose is great for her, but not particularly useful to us as modern readers really trying to get a grasp on what must have been a truly remarkable life, with nothing but a laundry list of patients helped to sort through.

I think what I expected from this book was a fighter’s story. I wanted a spitfire woman who defied convention, went her own way, was extremely blunt in her manner, and who clawed her way to the front and then won the hearts of an army with her amazing healing skills. And I can’t help but think that is what Mary Seacole was, but that she hid all of that under a proper veneer. The racism that came out so often was so jarring. It was so hard to reconcile the picture of a nation stripped of resources by a colonial power with that of a woman who had those same imperial prejudices, even though she saw and experienced the effects of imperialism.

I never read the book, but I saw a movie adaptation of Small Island, which is about Jamaicans that move to England. They think that they will be invited in because they are all part of the same country, and have the same culture, and London is the epicenter of this fantastic community that everyone participates in - but then they go to London and realize that they are not the same. That people do not consider them English, and that they are outsiders. And it’s very, very difficult for them to come to terms with that. We never got to see that eye-opening experience with Mary Seacole, and I think the narrative is the weaker for it. Instead, I can’t help thinking that she either refused to see what was around her, or just left those sections out of her reminisces. Or maybe I’m wrong, and she really was welcomed with open hands. I don’t know, but the journal seemed so empty of the personality I expected to inhabit it, and I couldn’t really get over my disappointment about that.

Ana: Like you, I expected Mrs Seacole's voice to be far more personal than it actually was. But instead of intimacy, we got a memoir that feels a little like a public speech; like a lecture in a Victorian hall. There's no denying the fact that this disappointed me as much as it did you, but I keep thinking about the possible reasons behind this choice. I do think the propriety and public speech tone weaken her narrative, but maybe this is one of those cases where we have to struggle to find whatsoever insight we can in what she's not telling us.After I finished the book I read a little bit more about her online, and I learned that she borrowed the money to go to the Crimea and that was why she returned ruined. This has fascinating implications about her motivation and sense of duty to the British Army, as you mentioned above. As she hints at towards the end of her memoir, she came back from the Crimea in dire need of money, and I read that writing this book was part of an ongoing effort to keep her in the public consciousness and to fundraise to help her out of debt and make sure she had a living. So in a way, this book was propaganda to serve a cause, which helps explain her "I don't want to brag, but look how helpful I was" tone. If we keep this in mind, I think her efforts not to denounce any racism of express unpatriotic thoughts make a lot more sense. Of course, my frustration as a modern reader doesn't go away because of this, but I can understand that she literally couldn't afford to alienate people - she needed the public's favour in order not to starve, and so she couldn't say things that most people wouldn't want to hear.We have gone on at length about what we expected to get out of this memoir and didn't, but there are also interesting things we did find. So I thought I'd ask you what you liked about Mary Seacole's narrative. What were some of the things that interested you the most?

Click here to see the rest of the conversation on Ana's blog!

[TSS] In which I don't talk much about books

2012-01-22T03:30:00.000-05:00

Hello Friends!

So generally, on my blog, I do not talk about my Real Life because so much of my life is not book-related and, well, the title of this blog is BookLust. But today I shall give you a glimpse behind the magic (iron?) curtain because there are many non-literary things I'd like to share.

First: I saw the movie The Ides of March this week. Wow. It's quite an eye-opening experience, and when I say "eye-opening," I mean, "eye-gouging." (Well, except that Ryan Gosling and George Clooney are both quite easy on the eyes.) When watching political movies, I often get very cynical about the entire election process and spend about 45 minutes mulling conspiracy theories and the high probability that they are correct because, for real, people can get manipulative and devious. I thought this movie was very well done, except that I am not a fan of the main female character at all. So stereotypical! I can't really say anything else in here because I'm sure some of you guys are spoiler fanatics and would be very unhappy if I were to say much else. I will almost certainly spend one Sunday Salon in the future talking about spoilers and how, IMHO, people have become out of control about them on the web, but today is not that day. But if you do not mind spoilers, or if you have seen this movie and would like to discuss the objectification of women with me, PLEASE DO. I have opinions.

Second: Book blogosphere, I am disappointed with you. You've given me so many books to put on my wish list. You introduced me to the glory that is Dr. Who. Actually, on Thursday night, I had a longer-than-necessary and fairly useless conversation with the head of campus recruiting, who just happens to wear bow ties. But, I found out very quickly, but not quickly enough to evade the morass of unfruitful conversation, he does not wear a bow tie because of Matt Smith. Have you ever tried describing Dr. Who to a non-science fiction/fantasy person?! You end up sounding a little unbalanced, which is unfair because if you watch the show it all makes complete sense. "Oh, well there's this guy. Actually, he's not a guy, he's a time lord. And he doesn't have a name. Well, he has a name but he doesn't tell anyone what it is. He calls himself the Doctor. No, he's not really a doctor. Anyway, the point is that he wears a bow tie. Just like you! Do you ever wear a fez? You should consider it."

Anyway, I bring this up because I only found out about the glory of Dr. Who through blogosphere and so made the logical conclusion that I would learn about everything glorious through blogosphere.

BUT I do not remember anyone in blogosphere telling me about The Wire. HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? The show is completely addicting. You have no idea the trauma I have gone through over the past week trying to choose between watching Dr. Who and watching The Wire (I admit: The Wire wins pretty much every time, but it's always quite close.) In fact, I actually went through and did a search for "the wire" on my Google Reader and none of you has ever mentioned it, as far as the accuracy of Google search can tell me. You are missing out. The show is fantastic. At least ten of my friends (I do not exaggerate) have told me that it is "the best show on television. Ever." I have only seen seven episodes of the first season, but I believe it. It's set in Baltimore and is about a gang in the projects and the cops that are trying to crack down on the drug trade and murders and it is is so intense and so good that I urge all of you to go out and watch it right now. There are five seasons, as far as I'm aware, so don't watch all of it right now, but make a commitment. I mean, it's winter (for most of us), so there's no better time to be a couch potato. Below is the DVD cover - does it not just ooze gritty intensity?!

Third: Contrary to what the above might lead you to believe, I do other things with my time besides look at screens. One of the most important things I did this week was help put on this conference. It was so much work, but so successful at changing people's perceptions of Detroit that I feel quite accomplished about my part in it. But whew, my inbox needs a break from frantic emails! Isn't the below logo so cool? It's the actual Detroit skyline. Anyway, so here is my plug: There are amazing people working in and amazing things happening in Detroit. Go to there.

Fourth: I am going to Ireland at the end of February! I will be spending some time on a school project, but will have at least four days to frolic. I am hoping to meet some friends, and will be over there with friends, too. I'm spending most of my time in Limerick. Any suggestions on what I should do or see or eat? Please let me know!

Fifth: BEA, anyone? I want to go this year! But...I am utterly befuddled by the registration process. Too many options! I gave up.

A and Z March through the Middle: Part I

2012-01-20T08:00:00.000-05:00

Hello friends! As you may or may not know, the lovely and fabulous and eloquent Zibilee and I are reading George Eliot's Middlemarch together over the next several weeks in a fairly meandering, unscheduled (well, we started scheduled and quickly lost sight of that) manner. One of the first things I noticed about the book was the beautiful covers it has sported through the years, and so I'll be sure to share those with you over the course of our discussion. Basically, our plan is to read one book (there are eight books that comprise the novel) and then discuss it and analyze it into submission so that our weary modern minds can understand it :-)

No, for real, this is how the novel is meant to be read! It came out in eight separate parts originally, and who are we to disagree with George Eliot, the woman so tough she wrote as a man? Plus, this way, we can get into great detail on each section of the book, instead of trying to converse on the whole 1,000+ pages of it all at once.

Based on the nature of our discussion, spoilers abound ahead! But so does pure literary conversational awesomeness, so weigh your choices and choose accordingly. The first half of our Part I discussion is here on BookLust, but for the real meat of our discussion, be sure to check out Heather's post on Raging Bibliomania.

Let us commence.

Aarti: I am enjoying the story so far! That is, I have no idea what the story really is at this point, but I am enjoying the portraits that Eliot is painting of the major characters. This is one of the few books that I have ever started reading without having any idea of the plot. Did you know anything about the story going in, or are you basically going into it blind the way that I am? I also am one of those people who always reads the end of a book before she gets to the middle. This is basically impossible to do on the Kindle, however, which is very frustrating to me. I can’t have any spoilers!

Heather: I am also enjoying it, but in smaller doses. I find that some of it is hard to wade through, and am a little unused to the language. It's a lot different than a lot of the classics that I have read, in that it seems less accessible, but when I do get involved, I can't tear myself away. I had no idea what it was going to be about, and still don't. It seems that it's a lot more character driven than plot driven. I think that is something I have discovered very early on. I usually don't read the ending first, and hate spoilers, so I actually like not knowing much about it or being exposed to what the plot developments to come will be. I have a feeling that this is sort of meant to be a story with a point and a lesson, though I have no idea what that will be!

Aarti: Anyway, to the book. Like I said, I don’t really know what the plot is. I admit to a bit of relief when the cast of characters grew past Dorothea and her family to include the other inhabitants of Middlemarch. While I like Dorothea and could grow to love Celia, I don’t think I could handle close quarters with the two of them for over 1000 pages. I was really worried when I met Dorothea because of just how religious and self-righteous she is. I just don’t think she’s much fun at all. She is very much the stereotypically perfect Victorian gentlewoman (though the book’s setting is technically before the Victorian era begins), so I was surprised to read Eliot’s narrator discuss how she was not normal, and was too strict and was unlikely to ever be happy because she was too religious. I was very relieved reading that because I realized that Eliot must not be quite as typical a Victorian author as I had feared. So far, though, I like Celia more than Dorothea.

I think Dorothea lost me when she said that she planned to give up riding just because she liked it too much and was therefore somehow offensive to God. I mean, really. I can see her becoming one of those Victorians who put weird velvet coverings on the legs of a piano because the bare legs affront her modesty. Celia has that really sharp wit and slightly vindictive turn of phrase that makes her much more human to me. I think even in the course of just the first section of this book, she has become a more confident character who talks back to her older sister, so I’m interested to see where that goes.

Heather: I also am glad that towards the end of the first book we met some different characters. Dorothea is sort of tedious, and I laughed at your comment about the piano legs, because I can totally see that! I can't imagine giving up something I love basically just because it gives me pleasure, and I think the whole idea of that is just ludicrous. I am also glad that she is not considered normal in Eliot's eyes. I know that her character is probably based on some stereotypical aspects of the women of that time period, and one thing that I keep thinking is that I am so glad that I don't love in that time period!

I like Celia better too, and think that she is the more realistic and winning of the two. So much of Celia's attitude seems to be compassionate and caring, but then again, towards the latter end of the first section she becomes more biting and I think that was fun to watch. There definitely could be some fireworks between the two. I am sad at she doesn't get as much page space as her sister does, but then again, it's probably because this is a story about Dorthea, or at least that is my impression.

I also get repeatedly angry that they keep harping on about how women aren't smart, or made for serious thinking, though this I think is a a bit of irony, since the author is a woman, and I think it really does reflect on the times it seeks to capture. It seems that all the men in the story think that women should be beautiful and compliant, but above all, quiet. But then Dorthea shakes this up by being contrary and wanting to learn things that it's not proper for a woman to learn. In one way, I like that she is so zealous about the pursuits of the mind, and that she is so eager to find a teacher, but it's sort of disturbing to me that she is looking at her future husband as such a father figure/teacher. It seems a little weird, but then again, I wouldn't say that she is all that well adjusted.

Aarti: Oh, I completely agree! Actually, I believe that George Eliot was really angry at the strictures put on women and actively sought to fight those through her writing (even though, ironically, she published under a male pseudonym). So I agree with you - I think there’s a lot of irony in the way the men view them women and their roles, and the roles the women themselves want to play. I have a feeling that is going to come into greater relief as the book goes on- I can’t imagine that Dorothea is going to be very happy in marriage. So much foreshadowing about that!

I really warmed to Eliot when we met Rosamund and Fred. These two are such a delight! I was smiling and laughing through that whole chapter because the way those two act towards each other and play off each other is exactly the same way that my brother and sister and I interact. She has the whole sibling relationship down so well! I loved the dialogue here:

“Really, Fred,” said Rosamund, when the servant had left the room, “if you must have hot things for breakfast, I wish you would come down earlier. You can get up at six o’clock to go out hunting; I cannot understand why you find it so difficult to get up on other mornings.”

“That is your want of understanding, Rosy. I can get up to go hunting because I like it.”

“What would you think of me if I came down two hours after everyone else and ordered grilled bone?”

“I should think you were an uncommonly fast young lady,” said Fred, eating his toast with the utmost composure.

“I cannot see why brothers are to make themselves disagreeable, any more than sisters.”

“I don’t make myself disagreeable; it is you who find me so. Disagreeable is a word that describes your feelings and not my actions.”

“I think it describes the smell of grilled bone.”

AMAZING. So hilariously exactly how siblings talk to each other. I loved it.

Heather: I actually was really engaged during that section, and loved the interaction between them too! They are just fun characters and their banter sort of reminded me of some of Wodehouse's writing. It's interesting to hear you say that it rings true. I got the feeling that all the teasing was done with merriment and love, and wasn't spiteful or hateful, which is good too. One gets the impression that they spend a lot of time together, and that their habits are familiar. It certainly seems like they are close, judging by the banter between them. I was actually reminded of the types of conversations that go on between my daughter and son, so I do think it rings true in that respect.

Now, mosey on over to Heather's blog to read our thoughts on some of the other characters, Eliot's grasp of human psychology, details on the political situation the characters continuously refer to and our predictions for what will happen next!

Musings: Will Grayson, Will Grayson

2012-01-19T00:30:00.000-05:00

I do not read a lot of contemporary young adult literature. This is mostly because whenever I read it, I am utterly confuzzled by how completely different my high school experience was than everyone else's appears to have been, at least as interpreted by YA authors. I did not drink. I did not lie to my parents. I did not have a fake ID. I did not drive around Chicago going to bars in sketchy areas so that I could see an obscure band. I did not take medication. I did not text on my cell phone because I did not have a cell phone. I never swore. I loved many of my teachers. I enjoyed most of my classes. I did all of my homework. I never ditched anything.

This was one of my first reactions to Will Grayson, Will Grayson, which takes place throughout my beloved Chicagoland (but was written by two authors who are not Chicagoans, unfortunately for them). I remembered that I do not read contemporary young adult novels because they make me feel very old and stodgy. Dusty. This book was no exception. This is not the high school that I experienced.

Will Grayson, Will Grayson is ostensibly about two high school boys with the same name, but really, I think the book should have been called Tiny Dancer: The Tiny Cooper Story because the book was all about him, not the Wills. Will Grayson the First lives a pretty ritzy life on the North Shore, gets really good grades, is best friends with the fabulously gay Tiny Cooper and is perhaps attracted to this girl Jane, but he doesn't let himself find out for sure for a while because his two rules are 1. Don't care too much and 2. Shut up. (I bet you can tell where his story goes in this book.) Will Grayson the Second lives in Naperville (also a very ritzy suburb on the west side, though this Will Grayson is not wealthy) with his mom. His dad left some time ago, Will battles depression, doesn't believe in capitalization, is pseudo-best friends with Goth girl Maura who is in love with him, but he doesn't love her because he is in love with his online friend Isaac.

Will Grayson the First meets Will Grayson the Second at a porn shop in Chicago, serendipitously, introduces him to Tiny Cooper, and then their lives begin to intertwine.

Only they don't, really. You would think that in a book that is titled after two characters with the same name, that the book would be about the two of them and their relationship with each other, but really the book is about each Will's separate lives and the only overlap is Tiny Cooper, who really dominates the story.

I liked Will Grayson the First, in that he wrote with proper punctuation, seemed pretty well-adjusted, had some quality one-liner, and asked girls questions about physics. He was a pretty typical guy (except for the physics questions). But in many ways, he wasn't fully realized for me. For example, his two rules of not caring and shutting up- we hear about them a lot, but I have no idea why he is so shut off from people. From what I can tell, he has some really great parents, a very supportive (if self-absorbed) best friend, and generally does pretty well for himself. So why is he so angst-y? Is it just general teenage angst or did something happen in his past? We never find out. And it turns out not to matter because his story goes exactly the way you think it's going to go, and you can rest easy knowing that Will Grayson the First will probably become an excellent surgeon and set his fabulous life to an awesome indie rock band soundtrack.

Will Grayson the Second was more interesting, but his life seemed to be defined by other people. First by Isaac, who he was so in love with for so long, and then, very abruptly, he switches completely to Tiny Cooper, who just happened to be in the right place at the right time. And then out of nowhere, Will Grayson the Second seems to have a sort of epiphany of realizing I Must Be My Own Man, which is great, but how did he get to that point? I don't know! It is possible I missed something. There was a scene involving a swingset in which a lot of stuff went down that I don't fully know if I understood. But it seemed to me like Will Grayson the Second had this amazing, confidence-boosting, individualistic moment and I was not there to see it, and that made me sad.

The thread between these two stories was this third character, Tiny Cooper, who is a huge marshmallow of gay pride and really, really dominates the storyline with his personality. He is a fabulous character, and his story should be told, but not in a book called Will Grayson, Will Grayson, in my opinion. Particularly at the end of the book, I felt like the focus of the book shifted to be not on either of the Will Graysons, but on Tiny and his influence and effect on so many people through the story. Very "Tiny Cooper, This is YOUR Life!" Which I am sure was very moving and wonderful for him, but it really took the emphasis away from the Will Graysons. I suppose it is very realistic that much of high school can be spent in the shadow of a more dominant person, but that doesn't mean that the quieter and smaller people can't have moments of triumph just to themselves, too, and I feel that the book's ending really overpowered these moments for the Wills.

That said, this read was entertaining, not least because it fed my love of Chicago with lines like this:

Traffic's not too bad on Sheridan, and I'm cornering the car like it's the Indy 500, and we're listening to my favorite NMH song, "Holland, 1945," and then onto Lake Shore Drive, the waves of Lake Michigan crashing against the boulders by the Drive, the windows cracked to get the car to defrost, the dirty, bracing, cold air rushing in, and I love the way Chicago smells - Chicago is brackish lake water and soot and sweat and grease, and I love it...

And then it made my eyes mist with lines like this, from Will Grayson the First's dad to his son: "I'm so proud of you that it makes me proud of me."

And gave me the tiniest, slightest peek into the horrible world of depression with descriptions like this (capitalization added by me):

I think the idea of a "mental health day" is something completely invented by people who have no clue what it's like to have bad mental health. The idea that your mind can be aired out in twenty-four hours is kind of like saying heart disease can be cured if you eat the right breakfast cereal. Mental health days only exist for people who have the luxury of saying, "I don't want to deal with things today, " and then can take the whole day off, while the rest of us are stuck fighting the fights we always fight, with no one really caring one way or another, unless we choose to bring a gun to school or ruin the morning announcements with a suicide.

The Wisdom of John Steinbeck

2012-01-16T03:30:00.000-05:00

First, I must admit that I have read only two John Steinbeck novels - The Pearl and The Grapes of Wrath, and I disliked both of them. But I remember them well enough to know that Steinbeck is a really evocative writer who understood the times about which he was writing. I just didn't really enjoy the books at all. I plan to give East of Eden a try one day, and I feel like that day may be coming sooner or later because I read this blog post, with a letter that Steinbeck wrote to his son on different types of love. And it is just so generous and good and kind that now I want to read more Steinbeck and fall in love with him because I know that he would understand exactly the sort of love that a reader can feel for a book, and that is just lovely.

In case you don't want to click over, I'll just tell you the key line from the excerpted letter:

And don’t worry about losing. If it is right, it happens — The main thing is not to hurry. Nothing good gets away.

TSS: The changing nature of this blog

2012-01-15T01:36:00.000-05:00

This week has been a big one for me in bloggish reflection. I think many of us in blogosphere have been mulling over where we fit in, how much of an impact we have and in what direction our community is going. I have been blogging since May 2005, so am coming up on seven years very soon, though the first few years of the blog were pretty on and off in terms of me posting, and I didn't have many readers at all.

I also posted reviews that were almost exclusively in the historical fiction or fantasy genres. Often, books that somehow fit both genres and were historical fantasy. That was basically all I read, and I think that if one were to classify my blog up until probably 2009 or 2010, it would be classified as a fantasy or histfict blog. And while I loved those genres (and still do, very much), I had a feeling that I was missing out on a big chunk of awesome reading.

So that's why I was so thrilled to receive an email from Kari this week that started with the words, "Hey Aarti, I know you're into non-fiction reading." Seriously, she does not realize how excited this email made me. Or actually, she probably does, because my response to that email had a copious number of exclamation points. But hey, I was excited. I am not sure when the transition happened, but clearly at least one of you out there thinks of me as a non-fiction reader, and that makes me really happy! I am not sure why- maybe because none of us really likes to be pigeon-holed or to seem narrow in scope. But also because I really have made an effort to read more widely and sometimes obscurely than I did in the past, and I'm glad to know that people have noticed.

I don't really know many people at all who have been blogging as long as I have (Kailana? Daphne?) though I know many, many people who have blogged much more successfully than I have in a much shorter time frame. But I started the blog to keep track of my reading and this week, I've really been reflecting on my reading. And honestly, when you have kept track of your reading for almost seven years, you start to see trends and shifts. I can trace my new-found love of non-fiction to the Women Unbound challenge that I co-hosted with Eva and Care. I think that challenge really impacted the way I read, and I'm so grateful that we brought that together. I think my interest in more obscure fiction stems from the now-dormant Spotlight Series that I co-hosted with Amy and Chris. It was so great to find amazing books that just didn't get the attention they deserved. And now that I have a Kindle, I can go back and find so many overlooked and forgotten books and journals and accounts that I never would have had access to otherwise.

I still love historical fiction and fantasy (though I admit the epic fantasy has not been thrilling me lately the way that it used to). But I've also found that as I've grown older, my reading tastes have shifted. I don't say that they have evolved, really, because I don't know that they are "better" now than they used to be. But they're certainly different, and I look forward to seeing what direction the next several years of reading will take me, too.

In looking back over old posts, I've also been reminded of all the people that have been involved in my blogging life. Many no longer blog, but several still do. And it was so fun to go back and see the first time that so many of you commented on my blog, and how long you've been coming here. I have done a lot of detective work both on my blog and other people's, trying to see how I first "met" some of you and all our interactions began, and it's been so fun! I'm sad to report, though, that most of my first comments on your blogs were not particularly insightful or interesting, so I'm really impressed and delighted that you all made such an effort to come back my way and post here, too :-)

I realized, in revisiting old posts, just how rarely I make an effort to visit new-to-me blogs these days. I don't know the last time I added a new blog to my reader, and I don't really know the last time someone new commented on my blog, either. I honestly don't have the bandwidth any more to go discovering new people, but it makes me a little wistful, too, that I am moving to the periphery of a community that I've been involved with for so long. I guess that's the nature of change, really. I am not likely to give up blogging any time soon, but I am also never going to be at the center of it.

I'm okay with that. As a very wise friend told me recently, books "are an escape from the world; a lens with which to focus on culture and people around us; and a way of forging strong friendships on the premise of loving the same set of printed words. If your blog still helps you do those things, then you should not stop." And I won't stop because I've had such a wonderfully literary week.

I've really enjoyed my bookish interactions lately- the fabulous email from Kari that signaled to me that my blog is no longer very genre-specific, reminiscing about the first interaction I ever had with Zibilee, trying to figure out a buddy read with Kailana from our shared LibraryThing catalogs, getting back in touch with Amanda through her blog, chatting with previously quoted wise friend about books challenging the tired tropes of epic fantasy, and discussing the nature of feminism and racism with Ana. And really, none of those conversations would have come about without the help of this blog, and my ability to interact with so many of you on a deeply personal and profound level. And I look forward to so many more conversations that will help me discover new works and new perspectives and new readers.

So thank you, BookLust. I think I'll keep you around for a while longer.

Musings: A Kid for Two Farthings

2012-01-13T00:30:00.000-05:00

A Kid for Two Farthings is a very short, light read that actually has not been sitting my shelf for long at all- only about a week. I picked it up because I am currently in the early stages of my epic buddy read of Middlemarch with Heather, and really need some shorter, lighter books to make me feel like an accomplished reader while I get through Eliot's 1,000+ page tome on the Kindle.

I suppose picking a book up solely because of its slimness is not a very auspicious start, but I was excited for this read. I really liked the other Bloomsbury Group book I read, Mrs. Ames, and I adore the covers of all the books, so even if I don't like the stories, I admit I would keep the books solely for their covers. What can I say, we all need a little prettiness in our lives.

Anyway, to the book! A Kid for Two Farthings is narrated by Joe, a six-year-old living in London's Fashion Lane in the early 1950s. His father has gone off to South Africa to make a fortune, leaving Joe and his mom in a pretty poor area of London. Luckily, Joe has Mr. Kadinsky, the tailor, for company, and spends most of his days in the workshop with the tailor and his employee, Schmule, who is also training to be a wrestler so that he can buy his fiancee an engagement ring. One day, Mr. Kadinsky tells Joe about unicorns and their ability to grant wishes. Joe immediately wants a unicorn and goes to the market to buy one- he comes home with a stumbling, distorted baby goat with the two horns so close together they look like one tiny bump coming out of his forehead. Joe is certain that this unicorn, Africana, will solve the problems of all the important people in his life.

Though most of this book is told from the perspective of a child, I wouldn't call it a children's book. It falls into that gray area that I recently visited with Crow. Really, this is a novel about working-class London after World War II. Mr. Kadinsky is struggling to make a living, fighting against large manufacturers for customers. He is a member of the tailors' union, and many of his colleagues complain about the lack of work. But Mr. Kadinsky always has time for Joe, and the bond between the two of them is really lovely to see. Mr. Kadinsky is just so kind and patient, even though his own life is difficult and lonely.

Through Joe's eyes, we see the best and worst of working-class immigrant communities in London. While so many people are struggling, there is still kindness and neighborliness everywhere, and six-year-old Joe goes off exploring on his own quite often without anyone ever worrying about the dangers he might face. One of the most touching encounters Joe has is with an alcoholic vagrant. The first time Joe sees him, the vagrant has come begging for some scrap material from Mr. Kadinsky, and Joe is terrified of him, thinking he is a villain that has come to steal Joe's beloved unicorn from him. Later on in the story, Joe follows the vagrant as a reconnaissance mission, to ensure that he can't get his hands on the unicorn. The chase stops at a cemetery. It's a very simple scene, with no words or looks or anything exchanged- in fact, the vagrant doesn't see Joe at all, but Joe leaves the cemetery much wiser and more compassionate than he entered it.

This very short novel (novella?) is like a series of vignettes about life in immigrant communities. I loved the interplay between so many different types of characters- Schmule, who was so obsessed with wrestling but made time to help Joe build a unicorn hut. Joe's mother, who worked at a milliner's and enjoyed her moments of gossiping with the co-workers, but then came home and cried about her departed husband. The grocer, who left the store to accompany Joe back to his house to help diagnose Africana's illness. And always, Mr. Kadinsky, who seems to have never forgotten what it was like to be a child with an imagination.

A Kid for Two Farthings wasn't a mind-blowing book. I have a feeling that in just a few weeks, I will forget a lot about it and how the story progressed. But it was a sweet book that really shed light on the sense of community that used to exist between people, and really brings to life the whole "It takes a village" philosophy. And it has a pretty great cover, too :-)

Note: Apparently this book was also made into a movie! I have a feeling it will be difficult to find, but I'll keep you updated if I can watch it.

News Flash: BookLust on Amazon!

2012-01-11T12:28:00.001-05:00

Ok, ok, so it's a totally different, more famous Book Lust series, but still very exciting! Nancy Pearl, of the Book Lust series of books, is pairing up with Amazon for the "Book Lust Rediscoveries" series of books. See the press release from Publishers Weekly below. Yay for re-releases of out of print books!:

Amazon today announced that it has launched a new series with “America’s favorite librarian” (and PW columnist) Nancy Pearl. Based on the work of Pearl’s popular Book Lust blog, Amazon’s Book Lust Rediscoveries series will create a line of Pearl’s favorite but presently out-of-print books. The series will publish approximately six books a year in print editions via Amazon.com, and as audiobooks via Amazon.com and Audible.com, and, according to Amazon, will be available nationally online, as well as at bookstores, wholesalers and libraries nationwide. They will also be available as e-books in the Kindle Store.

"I’m thrilled that Book Lust Rediscoveries makes it possible to republish many of my all-time favorite novels, all of which have long been out of print,” said Pearl in a statement. “Helping these wonderful books find new readers is, for me, a joy and a delight.” Pearl, based in Seattle, said she was “blown away” by Amazon Publishing's enthusiasm for the project. And buying the books will help libraries—Pearl has committed to donate a portion of the proceeds from sales of books in the series to the Nancy Pearl Endowment for Public Librarianship at the University of Washington’s Information School.

A Seattle public librarian, blogger, and NPR commentator, Pearl is a longtime trusted source of book recommendations. She is the author of Book Lust: Recommended Reading for Every Mood, Moment and Reason,” which contains approximately 1,800 book recommendations. And, currently, she compiles a monthly list as part of her column for PW, “Books to Read Before You Die.” She says the idea for the Amazon series came to her after receiving numerous letters from readers who were eager to read the books she recommended, but couldn’t find copies. Each book will now be widely available, complete with an introduction written by Pearl, a list of discussion questions for book groups and suggestions for other titles that may also appeal to the reader.
The first two books to be published in the Book Lust Rediscoveries series, with descriptions from Nancy Pearl, are: A Gay and Melancholy Sound, by Merle Miller, set for April of this year; and After Life, by Rhian Ellis, set for June.

Musings: Crow

2012-01-10T00:30:00.000-05:00

Crow, by Barbara Wright is a children's novel set in Wilmington, North Carolina during Reconstruction. I was so excited to read it because, as many of you know, I have become very interested in the racial history of America recently, and I wanted to see how the history is shared with children.

Crow is told through the voice of Moses, a very bright but poor fifth grader who lives with his parents and his grandmother. His grandmother, Boo Nanny, was a slave on a plantation nearby. She has a great wealth of knowledge and still works very hard to support the family; she never talks about her days as a slave, though. Moses' father Jackson is a graduate of Howard University and works as an alderman and a reporter for the Negro newspaper. His mother Sadie works as a maid for a well-to-do white family. Moses grows up valuing education, something his father prizes highly, but also knowing the old stories and ways that Boo Nanny shares with him. But as the 19th century winds down, racial tension is escalating and hints of Jim Crow are everywhere. White supremacists take control of Wilmington and Moses' family and friends must find a way to survive the terror of it all.

This book was fantastic. It has so much in it, I'm sure that a classroom discussion around the book could go on for days. There are adult themes, certainly- mentions of and references to lynchings, mobs, rape and extreme intolerance. I don't think this is necessarily a children's book. But it's one that has so much that I hope parents and teachers use it to teach children about history.

The book is based on fact- in 1898, four of ten elected alderman in Wilmington were Black, and the state had even sent four Black representatives to Congress. All that changed when the Red Shirt white supremacists began a reign of terror that, among other things, kept African-Americans from the voting booths. Many prominent and middle-class Blacks were killed, injured or forced to leave their homes, fearing for their lives. Barbara Wright tells us all of this in a very engaging and moving novel. Moses is an excellent narrator, going from a naive and trusting child to an intelligent and thoughtful boy over the course of one summer.

I fell in love with his grandmother, who imparted wisdom through fantastic dialect. For example, "That Mrs. Felton don't get herself exercised none over the brutality our womens endure at the hand of the white man. This mixing done humiliated us, tore our families apart, and some society lady has the nerve to suggest that their precious womanhood be at risk." I also loved the way Boo Nanny and Moses' father butted heads- one focusing on common sense and hard work while the other advocated education and school above all things. I thought that was very realistically portrayed and showed the transition African-Americans were going through. Moses' mother, too, had some important revelations during the story, all of which were sympathetically portrayed and added yet another layer of complexity.

America's legacy of slavery is a very charged and difficult one to face. Many students, from their youngest days, learn about slavery but have no real concept of what it was, day to day, and the toll it can take on a person and a people. It's easy to know things in theory, but much harder to allow yourself to experience the emotional vulnerability that comes, too. Crow tackles so much of that, starting with the many, many horrors that slaves went through, the strained relationships that directly resulted from the institution, the legacy of broken families, and the lingering racism and segregation that we are still seeing the effects of today. One of the most moving passages in the book is a conversation between Moses and his father.

"There's a lot more ugliness out there than I've led you to believe, and I haven't prepared you for it...I've been naive. I taught you to live in a world I wanted to exist, not one that actually does...I raised you in the belief that what it took to succeed in life was the same thing that it took to be a good man: honesty and hard work, courage and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism. But we're up against something I don't understand and don't know how to adapt to. The intractability of hate."

In some ways, I saw this book as an almost direct response to The Help, though it's written for a younger audience. The Help has gotten a lot of backlash and flak for its representation of the Civil Rights movement and the way it minimized the fear and terror and dangers that African-Americans involved in the movement faced. Crow puts you right in the middle of the action, albeit about 60 years earlier, when many Blacks still had the hopes and ideals of being on equal footing with whites. In some ways, it idealizes the African-Americans in the story and vilifies several of the whites in a somewhat melodramatic way. But it's a wonderfully written, honest and absorbing look at an important and often-overlooked time in our national history. Highly recommended.

Note: There is one point that upset me. As this story is based on historical fact, I assumed that the main characters were also based on real people. But this is not the case. I only found that out at the very end, and as a fairly momentous event occurs at the end of the book that I later found out could never have happened in real life because the character did not actually exist, I felt lied to. Just so you know, going in, what to expect.

Note: This review is based on an advanced reader's copy. I received this book for free to review.

[TSS] On the Merits of Skimming

2012-01-08T00:30:00.000-05:00

I am reading Middlemarch over the next couple of months with the fabulous Zibilee from Raging Bibliomania. The book weighs in at over 1000 pages on my Kindle and while I have enjoyed the first 20 percent of the book immensely, I admit that I have done some skimming.

There are many books that I've skimmed through before, even many books that I ultimately really enjoy. For example, I used to read a ton of epic fantasy, and I skimmed through every battle scene in those books. I do the same in historical fiction, pretty much leaving all of those battle scenes unread. In Middlemarch, Eliot spends a significant amount of time describing medical ailments and treatments (odd, I know), and I skim through those paragraphs, too. For non-fiction, if the author spends a lot of time on a topic I don't find particularly interesting or relevant, I will skim that portion of the book. If there is a scene that really disturbs me, I will skim that.

I don't know how many people skim in their reading. I think there is a fine line between judicious skimming and just DNFing a book. But I feel strongly that you can really, really enjoy a book as a whole while not loving each and every page of it.

I suppose there are two paths you can take here: you can either not read books that have sections that really do not interest you, or you can read those books and just skim/skip the parts that you don't find relevant. I prefer the latter method. There are so many things that I've learned from books that I've read in this manner. For example, I didn't like Isabella Bird much at all, but I was fascinated by her life in the Rocky Mountains and how independently she lived. So whenever she got prosy or preachy or annoying, I just went down to the next paragraph, and then the next, until she got interesting again. And I'm very happy to have read her memoirs, even if I didn't enjoy every single page of them.

This happens to me a lot with classics, too, particularly those written in the Victorian era. Frankenstein, The House Behind the Cedars, Middlemarch, The Leavenworth Case- I skimmed some pages of all these books. But I am so glad that I read all those books, even if I didn't read every single word. I think the effect of knowing and understanding the whole is much more important to me than reading each and every line.

And so often, instead of just giving up on a book, I'll skim for a bit and see if it gets better for me. And often, it does. I'm not saying that my life changed forever for the better because I made it through to the end of The Leavenworth Case. But my life hasn't changed forever for the worse, either, because I skipped most of the battle/rape/violence scenes in George R.R. Martin's novels. I think what's important is that I did find lines to enjoy, lessons to ponder and themes to mull over and appreciate in many books that I would have otherwise given up on. All because I allowed myself to just skip a few paragraphs or pages and then get back into the action.

What about you? How often do you skim a book?

Musings: Amelia Earhart's Daughters

2012-01-05T00:30:00.000-05:00

As you may have read in my 2011 wrap-up post, 2011 was the year of my feminist awakening. To that end, I've started reading and marking many books that share the feminist experience from different angles and perspectives. Amelia Earhart's Daughters: The Wild and Glorious Story of American Women Aviators from World War II to the Dawn of the Space Age was one such book. Quite the descriptive title, no? I was very excited to learn about how women used aviation to break down gender barriers and fight for equal rights.

That is not exactly what I got from this book, though. In my opinion, it's much more a work of aviation history than one of women's history. There was a lot of terminology I didn't understand, a lot of descriptions of war planes, and many details about breaking records that didn't make any sense to me.

I much preferred the first section of the book, on the women aviators of WWII, than the second, about women pilots trying (and failing) to become some of the first astronauts. Female pilots in the US were part of WASP, the Women Airforce Service Pilots. They flew warplanes around the country and often took on the dangerous task of carting targets for the air force pilots to practice on. The authors give us brief glimpses into these women's lives- where they came from, how they became interested in flying, and some of the missions they ran. But to me, it all seemed like more of a list than a biography. We didn't learn about their individual struggles so much as about the general struggle of being a woman pilot. I really wanted to dig deeper and learn about the women themselves, their own hopes and fears and thoughts on the treatment they received. But I didn't get much of that at all. I have a vague sense of all the women being fascinatingly independent and glamorous, but most of the names run together and there isn't anyone that I can think of as being the one woman that defines WASP for me.

The second half of the book focuses on the space age and America's goal of putting men in space and on the moon before Russia. This half didn't really interest me much. There are more background details for a couple of the women training to become astronauts, but once they actually entered training, readers received mainly just a very detailed listing of the training and tests they had to go through. I wanted much more meat in the book around their reactions to the training, how discrimination manifested itself, their feelings about the program, what they thought going into space would mean for not just themselves, but for all women. I just wanted a much more deeply emotional and feminist look at the work, but instead got a lot of aviation and space history, which I didn't find nearly as interesting. Perhaps if I really enjoyed reading about different types of planes, then I would have found this book to be "wild and glorious" as promised in the subtitle, but I didn't think the details presented were all that glorious; instead, I thought there was so much more that could have been told but was not.

This book did teach me a lot about a woman I had never heard of before, Jackie Cochran. She was an orphan from Alabama who rose up to start her own cosmetics company, take up flying, marry one of the richest men in America, and then used her considerable connections to help start the WASP, give the women veteran status, and lobby for women in space (she wanted to go into space herself, though she was well past the cut-off age). Cochran set all sorts of aviation records, including being the first woman to break the sound barrier. She was obviously a very driven and fascinating woman, and I wish we learned more about her and her contributions. I don't think I would have liked Cochran much as a person- she seemed really self-promoting and in love with her own power, much of it gained from being married to such a powerful man- but her place in history is considerable, and I was glad to know more about her. It's always so great to learn about women who pushed their boundaries, and Cochran was certainly one of those women.

This book wasn't quite what I wanted it to be, and I didn't enjoy it nearly as much as I'd hoped, but I think I still learned a lot from it that I would never have known otherwise. If you particularly enjoy war or aviation history, I think you'd like this much more than I did.

Musings: Wintertide

2012-01-03T00:30:00.000-05:00

Wintertide is the fifth of six books in Michael J. Sullivan's Riyria Revelations series (see my review of the fourth book, with links to reviews of all previous books). It gets harder and harder to do plot summaries of books that are further along in a series without giving away spoilers, so I'll just say that Royce and Hadrian are nearing the end of their quest to save the Heir of Novron and the Empress Modina is finally coming into her own and becoming a force to be reckoned with. Hadrian enters a tourney, Royce debates settling down, and the intrigues of the palace continue.

I didn't love the fourth book in this series, The Emerald Storm, nearly as much as I liked the first three books. Wintertide, too, disappointed me. Royce and Hadrian don't spend much time together at all, which was disappointing. There were a lot of characters with points of view telling the story, too, which I thought made it too muddled. And, most distressing of all, the strong and resilient female characters all became loony with love.

Two of the three women with POVs, Arista and Amilia, spent much of the book bemoaning the fact that their chosen men didn't love them. Amilia, I am fairly certain, cried in nearly every scene she was in. For a girl who managed to rise up through the ranks of a pretty terrifying place, win the trust of an Empress, and get through a lot of complicated scenarios with her head still firmly placed on her body, you'd think she would not break down so easily. But she does. And Arista, too, is a really strong character who led a revolt and became an ambassador, but she just sits and cries in a dungeon for nearly the entire book, wishing that Hadrian found her pretty. I mean, come on. There isn't even any tension in these stories, I feel, because it's pretty obvious that the men do have feelings for these women and the women (like so many female characters in literature before them) are just far too clueless to realize it. Well, Amilia catches on quickly, but Arista does not. And Arista upsets me more because I had such high hopes for her. She seemed strong and smart and sensible, but in this book she just is not. A few books ago she had a beautiful romance with a younger man that didn't work out and in this book, she completely negates that relationship and acts as though it had no meaning, and is just, "Hadrian, I want you to want me" the whole way through. It was very disappointing and really upset me.

The Empress Modina, at least, was a rock star in this book. Finally, the girl has woken up from her grief and is ready to kick some ass. I am so glad that she stepped up, and I am really looking forward to seeing what she does in the last book.

This book felt a little hollow and forced to me. The language seemed more stilted, like Sullivan was trying too hard to inject humor everywhere. For example, in describing the snide and cruel ways ladies of the court talked to each other: "Oh, my dear, I simply love that dress! I imagine it is insanely comfortable, given that it is so simple. Mine, on the other hand, with all this elaborate embroidery, is nearly impossible to sit in." And then Hadrian, trash talking during a fight: "You hold your sword like a woman. No, that's not true. I've actually known women who can swordfight. The truth is, you're just terrible." Or a high-ranking official from a university, describing his reason for coming to town: "At my age it takes a bit more than the allure of jingling bells and sweatments to rouse one such as I from warm chambers in the depth of winter." It just didn't seem to flow very well, and came off feeling more clumsy.

And I feel like much of the series, there's a build-up to this war against the elves, and a lot of talk about how elves are treated horribly, but we GET NO ELF ACTION, EVER. I do not know when the revelations for which this series is named will actually happen. In this small, slight way, this series reminds me of the Song of Ice and Fire series because people are so bogged down with the political intrigue and the details of what is going on right now amidst their kingdoms that they completely miss the whole "Winter is coming/The elves are revolting" big picture, and after five books in series that are only six or seven books long, it feels like we just haven't arrived at the main plot and have just been spending our time worrying over minor details. I may be way off in my estimation because I haven't read the end of the series yet, but I feel a little frustrated about it.

That said, I will obviously be finishing this series! I do really like Hadrian and Royce, and I hope like crazy that they spend more time together in the next book, fighting evil with swords and witty banter. I also hope that these lovesick women wake up and return to the awesomeness that I know they are capable of. And I want to see the elves!

This series of books has been picked up by major fantasy publishing imprint Orbit and is being released as a trilogy. The first two books, Theft of Swords and Rise of Empire, are available now. The third book, Heir of Novron, will be released in January, so if you want to sink your teeth into some epic fantasy and get through the whole series in less than five years, here's your chance!

Goals for 2012

2011-12-31T05:00:00.000-05:00

It seems like a lot of book bloggers are setting goals for 2012, in many different ways. Listing just a few books that they really want to get to, aiming to read a certain number of books from the TBR shelf, hoping to get to a certain ratio of male/female, Western/Non-Western, Classic/Non-Classic or read in more genres. I have thought a lot about the goals that I want to set for my reading in 2012. In what direction do I want to take my reading? How many books do I want to read? What subjects do I want them to focus on? How many books in translation do I want to read?

And after mulling and philosophizing and sighing a great deal, I came up with the following:

I refuse to set any reading goals for myself. I said differently in my Best of 2011 post, I know. I saw my stats and was disturbed. But, you know what? I am really proud of the way I read in 2011 and I didn't ever think back over my 2010 goals and try to read according to those goals. I read what interested me and awoke a response in me and made me want to continue reading. In 2011, that was mainly women's history, with an attempt to learn more about minority women's history in America. In 2012, it may be something completely different.

As book bloggers, we put so much pressure on ourselves. We not only want to read more, we want to read more diversely, read more classics, read more globally, read in tandem, read on deadlines, read certain genres, read certain numbers. The list of goals and projects and challenges goes on and on, and people get so stressed and upset for not trying harder or pushing further or being more cognizant of books they feel they should have read, rather than enjoying the books that they did read.

I don't really want to have any part of that. If I have a goal for 2012 at all, it's to just read what I want when I want to read it, and enjoy it. I don't care if I end up reading a disproportionate number of male authors, or fantasy novels, or books set in England, or ones that were not on my TBR list. In looking over my Best of List for 2011, six of the eleven best books I read this year were impulse reads- ones that I just picked up because they appealed to me at the time, and then immediately absorbed me in their narrative. I don't think that's a coincidence. I firmly believe in the right book at the right time, and I'm going to let the literary fates have their way with me.

So I have no idea what 2012 will have in store for me, reading-wise. But I am very excited to find out where I'll go next.

2011: The Year in Review

2011-12-30T13:25:00.000-05:00

Wow, 2011 is all done! What a rollicking year it was, too, for the world. Reading-wise, it was a slow year for me. I wasn't super-impressed with my reading this year, but in going over the list of books I've read, I read some amazing works! I think I just read most of them in the first half of the year, not the second :-) I'll get to goals for 2012 in another post, but here's the breakdown and my favorite reads of 2011 for you:

Total Books Read: 72. This is a pretty significant drop from 2010 (101 books), but pretty much on par with 2009 (77). I don't think I am likely to read 100 books in one year again for a very long time. I suppose the easiest excuse for the drop this year is that I was in graduate school and spent more of my time being social or doing work or trying to find a job than reading. Also, it took me weeks to read some books, and as I only ever read one book at a time, that may have had an effect, too. And generally, I have expanded my hobbies beyond reading this year- I exercised a lot more (not that you can tell) and spent a lot of free time cooking fun meals. Also, I was introduced to Dr. Who. So, just many more ways to spend my time than in prior years!

Male/Female Author Ratio: 25 Male : 47 Female. This is significantly more unbalanced than in any prior reading year for me. I usually am right around 50/50 on this ratio, but this year I just got much more interested in women's history, and that really impacted my reading.

"Out of Comfort Zone" Reads (books not in the fantasy/historical fiction genres): 38! This is a pretty great number for me, especially as I felt like I reverted back a lot to fantasy and historical fiction this year. But I think I'm doing very well in expanding and cultivating my reading palate, and I'm happy about that.

Non-Fiction Reads: 13. That's about 20% of my reads for the year, so I am really pretty happy with the number, though it seems really paltry to me. Some of those reads were the best ones of the year, though, so I think I'll continue to read more non-fiction going forward.

Books Read that were on the Bookshelf at 12/31/10 (reduction in TBR pile): 20. Three of these were DNFs, however, and do not count towards the 67 books finished this year. 20 is not as high a number as I would have liked, but I was in New York for the entire summer, without access to any of my books, so I am going to use that excuse. Also, I got a Kindle, which made me read many books that were not already on my shelves.

Classics Read (I define classic fairly loosely and include children's classics in this number): 12. This isn't bad, especially when you combine classics with non-fiction and come out to 37% of my reads for the year being in some way "improving." :-)

Countries Visited Through Books: Britain, France, South Africa, Canada, Ireland, Greece, Italy, Austria, Switzerland. This is a very Eurocentric list. But it's hard to meet a huge variety of goals in one year when you have limited reading time. Hopefully going forward, I will be more diverse with this.

Now, onto the more interesting awards!

Longest book read: A Dance with Dragons, by George R. R. Martin (not reviewed), weighing in at 1,016 pages. Very few of which, in my opinion, actually advanced the storyline, leading to:

Most disappointing book read: A Dance with Dragons, by George R. R. Martin. I feel like I am just over this series and want it to end quickly. I am sick of the rape, the violence and much else.

Best newly discovered authors: Gail Collins, Margaret Atwood, E.F. Benson, Katherine Mansfield

Characters I Wish I Could Give a Bear Hug:
Stephen Kumalo, Cry, the Beloved Country
Harold Godwinson, I am the Chosen King
Francie Nolan, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

Characters with whom I Wish I Could Share a Glass of Wine and Good Conversation:

Francie Nolan, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn
Sarah Tolerance, The Sleeping Partner
Tiffany Aching, I Shall Wear Midnight

Most Kickass Females:
Sarah Tolerance, The Sleeping Partner
Tiffany Aching, I Shall Wear Midnight
Elinore Pruitt Stewart, Letters of a Woman Homesteader
So, so many women in Gail Collins' America's Women and When Everything Changed

Funniest Books:
Right Ho, Jeeves, by PG Wodehouse
I Shall Wear Midnight, by Terry Pratchett
Mrs. Ames, by E.F. Benson

Unexpectedly Amazing Books, or Classics become Classics for a Reason:
A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, by Betty Smith
Cry, the Beloved Country, by Alan Paton
Mrs. Ames, by E.F. Benson

Books Everyone Else Seems to Have Loved but I Did Not:
The Night Circus, by Erin Morgenstern
Wonderstruck, by Brian Selznick

Books that Opened My Eyes:
America's Women, by Gail Collins
Soldier from the War Returning, by Thomas Childers
Kindred, by Octavia Butler
Tender Morsels, by Margo Lanagan

Greatest Free E-Book Finds:
Letters of a Woman Homesteader, by Elinore Pruitt Stewart
The Garden Party and Other Stories, by Katherine Mansfield

Biggest Literary "Holy cow, I can't believe someone came up with this idea":
The Picture of Dorian Gray, by Oscar Wilde

Biggest Non-Fiction "There is really a book on this topic?!":
The Unfolding of Language

Most Self-Absorbed Character Encountered:
Frankenstein from Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley

Most Obscure Topic I Can Now Talk About With Authority:
Serial cutting of women's clothing and undergarments in 18th Century London

Book that made me want to churn my own butter:
Understood Betsy

Most Anticipated Reads that Ultimately Disappointed Me:
The Heiress Companion
A Dance with Dragons
The Map of Time
The Agency: A Spy in the House

Most Annoying Females:
Corie from Summers at Castle Auburn
Cora Cash from The American Heiress
Pretty much any female from The Leavenworth Case

Best Books Read in 2011 (in no particular order):

Cry, the Beloved Country

America's Women

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

Soldier from the War Returning

The Blind Assassin

Mrs. Ames

Letters of a Woman Homesteader

I Shall Wear Midnight

Kindred

The Garden Party and Other Stories

The Sleeping Partner

Musings: An Accomplished Woman

2011-12-27T00:30:00.000-05:00

Jude Morgan's An Accomplished Woman is one of his novels set in the late 18th century. In the style of Jane Austen's Emma, it centers on an independent woman living in the country with her aging father and her many strong opinions.

In 1799 Lincolnshire, Lydia Templeton has just reached the age of 30. She spends most of her days reading and walking and enjoying her life, but all that goes astray when her godmother Lady Eastmond asks her to accompany a beautiful young heiress, Miss Phoebe Rae, to Bath for a season. Phoebe is young and naive and impressionable and has managed to fall in love with two men and needs help choosing between them both. Lydia dreads this task like no other, but ultimately decides to become Phoebe's companion. Luckily, her neighbor, former suitor, and witty friend Mr. Durrant will be there, too, hoping to find a wife and cut his useless nephew out of his succession.

I really enjoy Jude Morgan's writing style. He's very witty, has a great talent for metaphor, and puts in some literary asides for those of us who can catch them, too. He clearly knows the Georgian period very well; he's written several books that take place during that era, all of which have a similarly light and engaging tone that is very reminiscent of Jane Austen.

However, sometimes I think he tries too hard. There are a few too many witty metaphors, if that makes sense- so many that I can imagine him sitting over his desk trying really hard to find one that is just witty enough. And all of the wit comes from Lydia Templeton- very rarely does anyone else make a very observant and funny statement. I am sure the Georgians were rapier-sharp with their insults and jokes and general conversation, but they must have sometimes rested and not been quite so on, all of the time.

Also, this book was just very, very slow. It took over 100 pages for Lydia to decide to go to Bath as a chaperon, for example. And it could have taken about twenty. There were a lot of scenes that I didn't feel added much at all to the book, and a lot of internal dialogue on Lydia's part that was, while witty, not particularly relevant to the story. I don't understand why Lydia was so deadset against going to Bath, except that she thought it was a little de trop. But I don't know why that would cause 100 pages of indecisive angst on her part in the book, particularly as she is known to be a strong-willed and opinionated woman.

Much like Morgan's Indiscretion annoyed me slightly with its stereotypical gentleman-who-does-not-want-to-marry character, Lydia Templeton in this book was very much a managing woman who managed everyone else's lives without seeming to realize how much her own life needed to be managed. This book, however, was much better than many others on one part of the romance front and not so great on another.

First, what I thought to be the negative with regard to the romance- it wasn't very believable. That is, the two fought all the time. While I recognize that many times in romance novels, this is just a precursor to a very passionate, long-lasting love, I don't think it often works that way in reality. It just didn't seem like much sympathy existed between Lydia and her chosen man, and I was wary of their ending up together. They didn't have much chemistry, in my opinion, so it was hard to see that anything really "clicked."

On a positive note, though, at least the man was completely unaware of his feelings, just as much as Lydia was. I mentioned in my review of Summers at Castle Auburn that I get so frustrated and annoyed with the romantic trope of a man who knows that he and the heroine are meant to be, but the heroine is so blind and clueless that she doesn't realize it until the very end. That didn't happen in this book at all. Both characters (and me, the reader) seemed completely unaware of their feelings for each other until the declaration at the end.

This has been my least favorite book that I've read by Jude Morgan. I enjoyed the witty repartee, the banter and the very real feel of the period, but I think it moved too slowly and didn't much care for the characters. I still plan to read all the other books by him I own, though!

Musings: The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

2011-12-26T00:30:00.000-05:00

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is one of the most popular non-fiction books to have come out over the past year or so. It's about a 30-year-old woman in 1950s Baltimore who had a severe case of cervical cancer. While being treated at Johns Hopkins Medical Center, the doctors took part of her tumor (totally normal practice at the time). The cells from that tumor grew and multiplied more quickly than any other cells in culture ever had, and became known as HeLa, a strand used to help cure polio, to determine the effects of outer space on the human body and many other things. Henrietta Lacks' family, though, only knew about this much after the fact, say that they have been lied to about the whole procedure, and none of them even has healthcare, even while many more corporations and laboratories make money off of Henrietta's cells.

I really enjoyed this book and found the science of it fascinating, but I admit that I didn't love it as much as I thought I would. The whole story of the cells and the science and ethics and extensions of them was fascinating. I loved learning about how HeLa has been used to advance science, really enjoyed debating with myself internally about the ethics of doctors using a person's body for science without that patient's consent, and was utterly fascinated by the way the HeLa cells contaminated so many cultures and cost millions of dollars in lost and wasted research, leading to a much more stringent cataloging and sterilization system. So interesting!

But the science is just half of the book. The other half is about Henrietta's family and about medical history around African-Americans in general. These parts of the book made me more uncomfortable. I think this is a good thing- it's important to step outside your comfort zone and see the world from someone else's perspective. And being uncomfortable is a learning experience. For example, my brother has spent a lot of time working with AIDS patients in the US and in India, and my father is a general practice doctor in a pretty poor area of Chicago. Both have told me multiple times that African-Americans just don't go see doctors regularly, or often enough, or until a condition has gotten so bad that they just can't help it any more. I never understood this, but my brother would just shrug and say, "They just don't trust doctors very much." This didn't make sense to me because why would one minority population over any other type of population feel so strongly about something like that? In reading this book, I realized it's because there were many studies done on African-Americans that were not ethical at all. This knowledge and fear has been passed down over generations and clearly still exists today- the community as a whole is very wary of doctors, and with good reason. But it is so, so sad to see the way it is played out in this book.

Henrietta Lacks herself seems to have been a vibrant and interesting woman, but I can't help thinking that if she had lived out several more decades, she would have seen a lot of heartache. Her children grew up impoverished, abused, angry and uneducated. I was so stunned reading about their lives, which in no way mirror mine at all. In the 1990s, Henrietta's daughter Deborah was still using kerosene lamps to light her apartment. Her son Lawrence did not understand the concept of a cell. Another son needed triple bypass surgery. Her youngest ended up in prison for murder. Another daughter died, alone and forgotten, in an insane asylum. Most of Henrietta's family thought that by keeping the cells alive, Henrietta was alive. They thought that Henrietta's cells had cured cancer. They thought Johns Hopkins had made a ridiculous fortune off their mother's cells. They were really, really paranoid.

I can't yet wrap my head around everything that was presented in this book. For much of it, I felt that Henrietta's husband and sons just wanted monetary compensation for their mother's cells, and didn't really care much at all about learning how she had helped advance medical knowledge. Her daughter, Deborah, seemed much more keen to learn about her mother as a person, but she was also so paranoid about everyone's motives. So much of this book is a very intimate, disturbing journey into an American family that has never overcome the race barrier. It just made me sad.

It was a very eye-opening and powerful read, though- not just to learn about the science and politcs behind HeLa and the medical advances achieved using that cell strain, but also to learn about Americans that lead very different lives than mine.

Musings: Summers at Castle Auburn

2011-12-23T00:30:00.000-05:00

Summers at Castle Auburn is a book that has sat patiently on my shelf for over five years. Someone- of course, I can't remember who it was- mentioned it in a blog post recently, so I decided it was time to pick this one up. A light romantic fantasy seemed like the perfect way to start winter break.

Summers at Castle Auburn starts when Corie is 14 years old. She's the illegitimate daughter of a deceased nobleman and a wise woman, and every summer since she turned six, her father's brother comes to take her away from her grandmother's home so that she can experience the life the other half of her upbringing deserves. So every summer, Corie goes to Castle Auburn and spends idyllic months with the handsome Prince Bryan, on whom she has a massive crush, his cousin Kent, the beautiful enslaved Aliora that the gentry employs, and her favorite person in the world, her sister Elisandra. But Corie is growing up and as we pass through the next four years with her, she begins to see people for what they really are, what they are capable of doing and, more importantly, what she must do to ensure her own happiness.

There were many things about this book that really stood out to me, in both positive and negative lights. When I first realized that Corie had a beautiful half-sister, I felt certain that Elisandra would be the villain of this book. When I realized that Corie loved her sister, I felt sure that Elisandra would be a perfect ice princess that no one knew. When I finally met Elisandra, I assumed she would be the sort of great friend at the beginning that became a backstabber at the end of the book. There were many stereotypical roads down which Sharon Shinn could have traveled, and she chose to follow none of them. For which I am very grateful. Elisandra was by far, in my opinion, the most complex and fascinating and interesting person in this book. She was hard to know, yes, but she knew herself so well and held so fast to what she believed. In a book full of fairly light and unambiguous characters, Elisandra stood out as someone who really understands power and the responsibility that goes along with it, and who weighed risks according to what she thought would be best for everyone. She really strayed into moral gray areas, and I loved that about her.

I didn't really love the other characters, though. Prince Bryan is some sort of sociopath, and I have no idea why so many of the women in the book were in love with him. Supposedly they were completely blinded by his beauty, but I have difficulty respecting any girl who could have a crush on such a tool. That's part of the reason why I never really warmed to Corie- if she could be so in awe of a guy for so long, she clearly is missing some sense. Really, it seemed like Corie was blind to a lot of things for a very long time- the prince's selfishness, her sister's determination, her uncle's profiteering and the suffering of the Aliora slaves. It's only when people point out to her what is going on that she finally seems to open her eyes and notice.

Also, one thing that bothered me a lot was Corie's inability to see that a certain guy was in love with her. She kept assuming he was in love with her sister, even when the poor man gave her gifts, kissed her and basically told her he tried to become a better man for her. I mean, how dense can you be? This is something that upsets me in a lot of books. I can't for the life of me understand why female characters are so often written as completely dense when it comes to romantic interests. I think sometimes it's so that the male romantic lead gets the opportunity to give a big beautiful speech about how perfect the completely unaware heroine is, telling her that he wants her in his life no matter what, that life is empty without her, that he needs her to complete him, etc., etc. And then the female lead realizes her heart is beating madly, her breathing is becoming haggard, and her eyes shine as she meets the hero's gaze and comes to the startling conclusion that she's been in love with him all along.

What is so wrong with women knowing that a man is attracted to her? Big romantic speeches are very nice and quotable, but isn't there something to be said for the comfort and warmth that comes from knowing that you are appreciated and valued for more than the two minutes before you declare I love you and get engaged? Or isn't there romance in two people knowing they are in love with each other earlier on, and then working together towards a goal they both believe in? Or, perhaps, for a girl to realize she's in love with a man before he declares his feelings for her? This happens not only in books, but in movies and TV shows and plays and any other cultural medium. It's as though the girl needs the man to point out to her that she has value before she can believe it. Or, worse, that the girl is so flighty and scatterbrained that she needs the sensible, kind-hearted man to set her straight on things.

I realize that this is a lot to be reading into a novel, and I'm not in any way saying that this book is worse than others that do the same thing. It is a quick and enjoyably light read, but I just wish that the characters- Corie in particular- had a little more substance to them.

Musings: I am the Chosen King

2011-12-20T00:17:00.001-05:00

Ever since reading David Hastings' 1066: The Year of the Conquest, I have wanted to read more about King Harold. He was so sympathetically portrayed in Hastings' book; I felt so sorry for him as it really seemed like the fates just all turned against him at the end. He is someone very deserving of fame and remembrance, so I was very excited to finally get my hands on Helen Hollick's novel about his life, I am the Chosen King.

Hollick starts her story when Harold is a teenager who gets along well with his parents but not so well with his siblings. We follow him through three more decades- are with him when he meets the love of his life, as he gains confidence and consolidates power, deals with the difficulties of his capricious siblings and then, of course, see him setting on that fateful course that would pit him against William of Normandy.

This book was a little long for my liking, but that does not mean that I did not enjoy it. England was in the midst of very complicated politics for the duration of Harold's life, and Hollick highlights all of those situations here. There's King Edward's bitter relationship with his mother, King Edward's unsuccessful marriage with Harold's sister, King Edward's inability to be a strong ruler. There's Harold's black sheep of an older brother, Swegn, and his traitorous younger brother Tostig, and his self-absorbed sister, Edith. There's William of Normandy, ruthlessly going after anyone who stands in his way of his goals. So much going on! It's all fascinating, yes, but perhaps not all necessary to be included in the book.

I hope I haven't turned you off the book by talking first about its length. It took me quite a while to read this novel, but it was completely worth it. I fell completely in love with Harold, as I'm sure anyone who has read about England before the Norman invasion probably has. He was elected to kingship unanimously by the earls of England, won the respect of the common people and was politically astute. He was kind and well-liked. He was an amazing battle commander. It's only that he had to fight too many battles in too short a time. I admit that I think Hollick may have portrayed Harold a little too positively and some of the other characters a little too negatively, but I can't really blame her for that. I have a feeling that the more I read about Harold and his life, the more I'd have the tendency to hero worship him, too.

I think one of the reasons I so appreciated Harold is that oftentimes, we lump the Middle Ages into this horrible period of famine and war and rape and misery and religion that it's hard to imagine there were any bright spots. Too often, I've complained about books or series (ahem, George R R. Martin, I'm looking at you) that have really grisly, cruel and rapacious characters at their hearts, only to hear people (many of whom know nothing about Medieval history, I'd hazard a guess) tell me that I'm overreacting because "that's just how life was in the Middle Ages." As though every man in Europe went around raping and pillaging and being evil, and so that makes it okay. King Harold stands out as a counter-argument to that way of thinking, as someone who was conscientious and thoughtful and prioritized his country over himself.

If you know English history, you know what happens to Harold. But this novel puts flesh on those old bones, brings the history to life, and really just makes you want to cry out with the injustice of it all. In many ways, my reaction to this book was as emotional and visceral as my reaction to The Sunne in Splendour, Sharon Kay Penman's fantastic book about the doomed life of Richard III. Like so many books about Richard III and King Arthur, I opened this book knowing exactly how it would end but ended it wishing desperately that things could have gone differently.

In many ways, 1066 is one of history's great "What ifs?" What if William of Normandy had lost the Battle of Hastings and been sent back to Normandy? What if England continued to be ruled by English kings, not Norman ones? The English system was very sophisticated and much more democratic than those of its Continental neighbors; it's tempting to go down that road and imagine what might have been. Particularly tempting to imagine Harold continuing with his life and his loves and dying an old man, content and respected.

But I suppose in many ways, those historic figures with tragic endings is what makes them so romantic, and it's the speculation about what might have been (and the accompanying assumption that what might have been would have been idyllic) that interests us so much. Harold Godwinson absolutely fascinated me, and I'm so grateful to Hollick for writing a detailed and respectful novel about his life. Highly recommended for historical fiction fans.

Does anyone recommend any other books to read about the Godwinson clan? I'd love to read more! Also, do people in England learn a lot about history before the Norman invasion and thus give Kings Edward and Harold significance in teaching? Or do you really just start learning post-1066? I'd be interested to know!

Musings: The Heiress Companion

2011-12-14T00:30:00.000-05:00

I was very excited to receive Madeleine Robins' The Heiress Companion from LibraryThing's Early Reviewers program because I love the author's Sarah Tolerance mysteries. The Heiress Companion is a reissue of a Regency romance Robins wrote in the 1980s, and I was excited to get wrapped up in the complex world and witty interplays that define Madeleine Robins for me.

The Heiress Companion is about Rowena Chartwell, a wealthy and independent 27-year-old orphan who decided to become paid companion to the widowed Lady Bradwell rather than be forced to live under the chaperonage of old tabbies. We meet Rowena as she's planning a party for the widow's second son, Mr. Lyndon Bradwell, who has been away on the Continent for several years but is now returning home. As you might expect, Mr. Bradwell comes upon Rowena unexpectedly, the two mistake each other's identities, dislike each other and then fall in love.

If I make it all sound inevitable, that's because it is. Miss Chartwell and Mr. Bradwell meet around page 10 of this book, and from that moment, readers know exactly what is going to happen. But then it takes about 200 pages to get there. Or not quite- it takes about half the book for us to get to that point, and then the second half of the book is spent dealing with miscommunication, crossed wires and (IMO) unnecessary drama. By the end of this short book, we have three romantic couples settled, all of whom overcame romantic obstacles to get to that point of true happiness.

But there's really no tension in this book at all. The couples are happy together, the parents are happy with the couples together, and the readers know what all the couples will be as soon as they are introduced to us. There are so many characters in so few pages that we hardly even see Rowena and Lyndon fall in love at all- in fact, it seems like one page, they dislike each other, the next page, they are wary of each other, and then all of a sudden, they're madly in love with each other. There are a few characters that are unlikeable in this story, and the three of them are just so absurdly unlikeable that you know they'll be defeated in the end and love will triumph. There is very little that is original or unexpected or memorable in this story, and I was very disappointed after my great love for the author's Sarah Tolerance mysteries. Those stories are detailed, rich in history and character development, with relationships that develop over slow embers and plots that are deep and involved and satisfying. The Heiress Companion had none of these elements. To be fair, the book was written about 30 years ago; clearly, Robins has developed into a far more sophisticated and capable author over that time. I'm so glad that she continued writing and provided us with such a strikingly fabulous heroine such as Sarah Tolerance. Maybe it's because Sarah is so wonderful that Rowena just doesn't impress at all.

Note: I received this book for free to review.

[TSS] Interlude - The Bhopal Disaster

2011-12-11T00:30:00.000-05:00

One of the most impactful lectures I ever had in my life happened last week, when my Strategy professor, Dr. Gautam Ahuja, took an hour out of our regular class time to teach us about business ethics. With significant emotion, he told us about how people within companies make strategic decisions to cut costs to better compete in the environment, often without recognizing that there are humans on the receiving ends of those decisions. As future business leaders, it is imperative we take responsibility for our actions. We are taught to believe so strongly in the market and in the forces that guide it, the ability of individuals acting selfishly in a collective fashion to punish firms that behave badly and reward those that do well, but this often does not work as a leveling mechanism.

Professor Ahuja asked our class, "What is the value of a human life?" We all debated this awkwardly for some time, talking about future earnings potential, health profiles, etc. He nodded in agreement with all of us, stating that of course those are important considerations for determining the economic value. Then he said, "Based on that discussion, then... what is the value of an Indian life?" Implying, of course, that many Indians make much less money than Americans do, have a shorter life expectancy and less access to quality healthcare.

He illustrated this point by sharing with us the story of the Union Carbide gas leak in Bhopal, India. Sadly, many of my classmates had never heard of this disaster, and it seems to have generally been forgotten in collective memory. So today, I'd like to share the story with you in the hopes that you can get a small inkling of just how important this lecture was to me and to all my classmates. It takes so much courage for a man to get up in front of 100 students, three days in a row, and tell them with so much emotion and guilt, exactly why business ethics are important. It was a true act of bravery, and I hope it gives you pause as well.

On the night of December 2nd, 1984, there was a gas leak of methyl isocyanite at the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India. Several factors led to this leak including very low safety standards and maintenance in place at the plant, due partly to very lax government regulation and partly to a very hands-off approach by Union Carbide's upper management in the United States and partly to communication problems between US and Indian managers. Hundreds of thousands of people were exposed to the toxic gas. Estimates vary about how many died from the exposure and on what time frame should be used in attributing deaths to the disaster. Much of this speculation is due to how tight-lipped the government was. The plant was closed off to outsiders completely (including Union Carbide officials) and the government forbade information to be made public until 1994, a decade after the disaster occurred.

Over the past 27 years, somewhere between 10,000 and 25,000 people have died from gas leak-related causes. A government affidavit in 2006 attributed over 550,000 injuries to the disaster, including tens of thousands of people who were either temporarily, partially or permanently disabled. Immediate effects were sore eyes, difficulty breathing and frothing at the mouth. 3,000 people died in the 24 hours following the disaster. All the leaves on trees in the area fell off. As the gas stayed low to the ground, many of those were children. In the weeks following the disaster, 50,000 people were treated for a wide variety of symptoms ranging from blindness to kidney and liver failure. There have also been fertility problems and birth defects attributed to the accident. Union Carbide immediately shut down the plant. This caused massive protests. No one wanted toxic chemicals leaking into a densely populated city, but neither did they want such a major employer to shut down. On Union Carbide's website dedicated to the disaster, the company maintains its belief that the leak was caused through sabotage and that the company did everything it could to help the victims after the disaster.

How do you place a value on the lives that were lost and incredibly altered due to the gross negligence involved in this situation, not just by employees at the plant but also by the government? What sort of thinking goes into the decision to build a plant that produces toxic chemicals in a developing country with very low health standards, and then to build that plant near a densely populated city? When we so divorce ourselves from a situation, look at it clinically and strategically, do we completely forget the repercussions involved? As a manager, you can say, "I need to cut costs to maximize shareholder value." As a shareholder, you can say, "I don't make the decisions, I just own the stock." And so the humanity inherent in our own individual decisions are lost in the corporate environment.

The Indian government, in 2010 (26 years after the accident) charged seven ex-employees, including the former Union Carbide of India chairman, with causing death by negligence. They were each sentenced to two years in prison and fines of $2,000, which is the maximum amount under the law. Union Carbide offered to pay damages totaling $350 million- the amount covered by their insurance. In 1989, they paid out $470 million, which was the insurance amount plus interest. $470 million for over at least 200,000 injuries is equal to about $2,350 per person.

$2,350. The value of an Indian life.

Musings: The London Monster

2011-12-07T00:30:00.000-05:00

I have had Jan Bondeson's The London Monster on my shelf since early 2007. I am not entirely sure what made me pick it up. Do you ever try to figure that out? Why suddenly, a book you've overlooked for years pops off the shelf at you and you finally settle down to read it? I am sometimes able to trace my reasoning, but in this case, no idea.

The book is about a series of crimes in London in the early 1790s. Pretty women complained of a man accosting them on the street, saying dirty things and then often cutting them across the thigh or behind with a sharp blade and then laughing in their faces while they screamed in terror. Sometimes, he would insist that they smell a bunch of artificial flowers and then shove the nosegay in their faces, cutting them with a hidden blade. He never killed any of them, but he wreaked havoc on the streets of the city and made many women fear to go out at night. Eventually, Rhynwick Williams was arrested, charged and found guilty of the crimes and sentenced to a steep prison sentence. He was defended by the fabulously namd Theophilus Swift, a larger-than-life Irishman who liked to be the center of attention and made the trial even more fantastic.

This book was absorbing and eye-opening. It was so interesting to read about the very scant and ill-trained police force in London during the Georgian era, and even more interesting to learn about the ridiculous Theophilus Swift. Many times, I thought the author must be exaggerating because I felt like there was no way such a man could truly exist- not only did he challenge a duke to a duel, but he also accused Prime Minister Pitt of trying to kill off the royal family, got into a huge kerfuffle with the deans of Trinity College and had a very volatile marriage. This was the man who stood up to defend the rights of Rhynwick Williams. But Swift wasn't the only interesting character involved in this drama. There were the women who suffered at the hands of the London Monster, many of which described men of very different physical descriptions and were unable to positively identify Williams as the culprit. There was the wealthy Mr. Angerstein, who offered a huge reward to anyone who could find the Monster, leading to a great many greedy people falsely accusing others of the crimes. There were the judges that presided over the cases, the barristers for the prosecution and the defense. There was the absolutely insane charge against Williams itself, made so that he could be charged with the felony of tearing people's clothes rather than the lesser charge of attempted murder (yes, it's true).

I am likely to enjoy any book set in England during the Georgian era, so I am quite likely biased in enjoying this book so much. I loved all the illustrations in this book! There is a rich array of political cartoons and notices and prints that really added to my appreciation of London's workings at the time. However,there a few chapters at the end attempt to describe mass hysteria and its effects, and look into the psychology of serial criminals. I didn't find these chapters nearly as interesting as the story of the London Monster itself, and the question of whether Rhynwick Williams did or did not commit the crimes of which he was accused. There was so much obstruction of justice, so much inconsistency and so many theatrics in the trial that I can't believe it proceeded fairly.

It was a charged atmosphere- women in the 18th century were considered "weaker men" and often fainted at the sight of a mouse or a strong glance (so says the author, but I just find this so hard to believe). And so of course, being accosted in the street would result in serious palpitations. I wish more of the women had been open about the "vile words" that the monster used on them- no doubt they'd seem less vile to modern ears- rather than just blushing and avoiding the topic. I can't help but think that it's stories like this that are used, time and again through history, to keep women inside and frightened and afraid of all the horrible things that can happen to them Outside. The book put me strongly in mind of Arthur Miller's The Crucible in which a few bored women wanted attention and started a horrible mass hysteria.

I really enjoyed this book on what has become an obscure historical footnote. An appealing book that describes not only the legal system in place at the time, but also a lot of social norms and larger-than-life characters that lived in the period.

Musings: A Slave in the White House - Paul Jennings and the Madisons

2011-12-02T04:14:00.000-05:00

A Slave in the White House: Paul Jennings and the Madisons is a long title that is pretty misleading. Much of the story is taken up not with Paul Jennings (the slave) but with the Madisons, particularly Dolley Madison, with another good chunk devoted to Daniel Webster. I assume the historical record is scarce on details related to Paul Jennings' life, so Elizabeth Dowling Taylor, the author, had to embellish by putting in a lot of details about other people. But in that case, she should have chosen a different title. I started the book really hoping to delve deep into the Madison administration and Paul Jennings' unique viewpoint on it, particularly as the slave of "the Father of the Constitution" who fought so hard for American liberty but did not give liberty to the African-Americans he owned. But that is not what I got.

Paul Jennings was born into slavery on Montpelier, the Madison plantation. As a young man, he accompanied James and Dolley Madison to the White House as a household slave. (I thought this would comprise the bulk of the book, but in reality it was only one chapter, and most of that chapter was about Dolley Madison.) After Madison left office, Jennings worked as his personal manservant for the rest of Madison's life, marrying a slave on a neighboring plantation and making life plans, expecting to be freed in the former President's will. But Madison did not free him, wanting to ensure that his beloved wife Dolley was comfortable in her widowhood. Montpelier, though, was not the thriving plantation it once was, and Dolley sold off some of her slaves. Jennings became terrified that he, too, would be sold, and approached Daniel Webster for help to buy his own freedom. Once Webster gave him the loan, he worked hard all the rest of his life to free himself and his children and earn a living for himself in Washington, DC. He also wrote a very short memoir, A Colored Man's Reminisces of James Madison, which was published in his later years and which was a primary source in this book.

From the little we know about him, Paul Jennings was a very strong and ambitious man. He rose up from slavery to become a landowner himself, buying two homes in DC, and even went on to lend his old mistress, Dolley Madison, money in her times of need. He had five children, and he purchased freedom for all of those that survived childhood. He married three women and had several years with all of them (except the last, whom he married when he was past 70), but we sadly have no information on what he was like as a husband. He was courageous enough to risk his own safety soon after buying his freedom by helping a Montpelier slave escape the threat of sale. He was literate, poised and very well-mannered, and became an important member of the Washington DC African-American community.

I think it's because Jennings was so interesting that I was frustrated by this book. Clearly, Taylor didn't have much information about him. I am always piqued by non-fiction books that seem very speculative in nature. Taylor, for example, begins every chapter with an italicized vignette in which she imagines Paul Jennings in different scenes throughout his life. These are all hedged with phrases like "Perhaps Jennings thought X" or "Surely Jennings wondered Y." I didn't find these at all necessary and I would much prefer that they had been edited out altogether. And there was just too much emphasis on other people in this book. In many cases, I thought this book was more about Dolley Madison, James Madison and Daniel Webster (in that order) than about Paul Jennings. There is a rich, documented history of their lives, and it can overpower that of Paul Jennings'.

Overall, this book was a good introduction to a fascinating and important historical person, but I don't think the title is indicative of the contents, and I don't think there is quite enough information on Jennings to write a full-length book about him.

Note: This review is based on an advanced reader's copy. I received this book for free to review.