Stevens is an old-fashioned butler who has been working his entire life at an old style English house (mansion to be exact, or castle? Anyway, it’s huge). Being a butler is not just his job, it’s his entire life. He has extreme pride for what he does, who he works for, and who he is for his profession. Because of his extreme, rather odd views of things, he is somewhat socially imbalanced, and that causes him to be caught in all kinds of interesting situations with the people around him.

The basic premise is not what I would call my kind of story as it deals with upper class society in a wealthy country, albeit it’s the butler who gets the spotlight. Having said that, I was totally absorbed into Stevens’ thoughts and life from beginning to the end. This is a book that is heavily based on characters rather than plot, and what a great characterization Ishiguro has done. Everything about Stevens is so believable, so well-developed. And the ending will surely take your breath away. It did mine. It was so tragic, so devastatingly heartbreaking.

Jess, my book fairy who passed me the book, described it as “pitch perfect” and I couldn’t agree more. What really stood out for me, apart from the language, was the technique. It felt like Ishiguro has painstakingly rewritten and edited the book, again and again, honing it to perfection. No word was wasted, no gesture was not meaningful, no speech was unnecessary. It was so clean, so lean, so articulate. Yes, it was pitch perfect!

As the basic story is not one that is close to my heart, it probably won’t end up as my favorite book of all time. (Maybe it will maybe it won’t. Only time will tell.) But as a novel, it is amazingly accomplished. Give me another Ishiguro’s anytime of the day. I’m sure I’ll end up reading all his books eventually. I would therefore give The Remains of the Day the perfect 5 stars. I’m not sure if that makes sense. Can you think of a book in which the basic story is not close to your heart but you think it works perfectly as a novel? What’s the next Ishiguro would you recommend? The Unconsoled, An Artist of the Floating World, or A Pale View of Hills? Any that you feel strongly about from the three?

1989, 258pp

First Line
It seems increasingly likely that I really will undertake the expedition that has been preoccupying my imagination now for some days.

Memorable Passage
“There was, for instance, the question of cost. For even taking into account my employer’s generous offer to ‘foot the bill for the gas’, the costs of such a trip might still come to a surprising amount considering such matters as accommodation, meals and any small snacks I might partake of on my way. Then there was the question of what sorts of costume were appropriate on such a journey, and whether or not it was worth my while to invest in a new set of clothes.” ~ p10

Challenges/Projects
Read the Book, See the Movie, The Man Booker Prize, 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, Reading the World

Also reviewed by
Steph & Tony Investigate! | Arukiyomi

The Film (1993)

The film was nominated for 8 Oscars in 1994 for Best Actor, Actress, Costume, Art/Set Direction, Director, Picture, Music, and Writing. (too bad it didn’t win any. But their competitors of that year were Schindler’s List and The Piano. Tough competition!)

Stevens the butler was played by Anthony Hopkins beautifully, as well as Emma Thompson as Miss Kenton the housekeeper. The movie stayed very true to the book, it captured the mood very well, and the important scenes were played better than what I imagined while reading.

The setting in Darlington Hall was amazing. I got to see everything that was hard to imagine by myself: the summer house, dining room, kitchen, servants’ quarter, drawing room, library, etc. There were even a couple of nice extra touches that I don’t recall being mentioned in the book, like secret passages for the servants to go from room to room without being intrusive (so fun!) and the myriad of labeled bells connected to different rooms.

The Remains of the Day is a wonderful movie. Really well done. And for me the tragedy was even more apparent than in the book. Highly recommended.

Rating: 8/10

But really I just barely scratched the surface of what is in the book. There are many philosophical musings about love, life, relationship, politics, and the world. My did I enjoy them. The book is so so rich with ideas that I was in awe through and through!

The writing wasn’t exactly fantastic. The excessive parentheses especially annoyed me. Makes you wonder if they really came from Kundera himself in the original language. The book is translated from Czech by Michael Henry Heim, who is an award-winning translator. So I guess it was already in the best hand as far as translation goes. It also drove me a bit crazy when it talked about kitsch for several chapters. A few checks into dictionary and wikipedia didn’t get me very far. I’m still not sure if I understood.

But again, the ideas! How original! How thoughtful! How mind-bending! Anybody who could make politics seem so sexy must have exceptional talent! I chose to see the real strength of the book rather than the weakness–which now seems to be even less important. Boy oh boy how happy I was to finally try Kundera, who solidly earned his place on my favorite authors list. He must watch out because I’m going to go through his back catalogue!

I’d highly recommend the book for people who question lots of things in life, for those who experienced turmoil in their own country and might be forced to leave, or just those who enjoy discussions of out-of-the-box ideas. I enjoyed The Unbearable Lightness of Being immensely that I couldn’t give it anything other than

1984, 304 pp

First line
The idea of eternal return is a mysterious one, and Nietzsche has often perplexed other philosophers with it: to think that everything recurs as we once experienced it, and that the recurrence itself recurs ad infinitum!

Memorable Quotes

“Chance and chance alone has a message for us. Everything that occurs out of necessity, everything expected, repeated day in and day out, is mute. Only chance can speak to us. We read its message much as gypsies read the images made by coffee grounds at the bottom of a cup.” ~ p46

“She had come to him to escape her mother’s world, a world where all bodies were equal. She had come to him to make her body unique, irreplaceable. But he too, had drawn an equal sign between her and the rest of them: he kissed them all alike, stroked them alike, made no absolutely no distinction between Tereza’s body and the other bodies.” ~ p54

“Being in a foreign country means walking a tightrope high above the ground without the net afforded a person by the country where he has his family, colleagues, and friends, and where he can easily say what he has to say in a language he has known from childhood.” ~ p71

“What we have not chosen we cannot consider either our merit or our failure.” ~ p85

“The  goals we pursue are always veiled. A girl who longs for marriage longs for something she knows nothing about. The boy who hankers after fame has no idea what fame is. The thing that gives our every move its meaning is always totally unknown to us.” ~ p119

“The characters in my novels are my own unrealized possibilities. … The novel is not the author’s confession; it is an investigation of human life in the trap the world has become.” ~ p215

“Attaching love to sex is one of the most bizarre ideas the Creator ever had.” ~ p231

Project
Read the Book See the Movie, 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, Reading the World

Also reviewed by
bibliojunkie | arukiyomi | Mad Bibliophile | Save Ophelia

The Movie (1988)

The movie is played by Daniel Day-Lewis (of the Butcher in Gangs of New York) as Tomas and Juliette Binoche (who I knew from Catherine Earnshaw of the 1992 Wuthering Heights) as Tereza.

I thought Tereza was well-played, showing grace, youth, and innocence. But my gosh did I have problem with Tomas character in the film. I guess the main problem was, I did not find Day-Lewis sexy, so the whole Casanova thing he was meaning to pull did not work. The continuous smug smile on his face annoyed me as hell.

But you can kind of tell from the structure of the book, that a movie adaptation was not going to work well. The major (and the most crucial) portion of the book lies in the narrator and his philosophical musings, not the plot. Cinematic is great for showing plot and characters, but not deep inner thoughts.

With a bag of skepticism before going in though, I thought the film was somewhat decent for its ambition (it’s nominated for 1989 Oscar for Best Cinematography and Best Writing for Screenplay Based on Material from another Medium). It’s watchable, even if only for setting and lifestyle of the time and place. But it’s skipable for the non-fan of the book.

Rating: 7/10

First thing I noticed was how little I know about UK in general. I had to look up Edinburgh and The Brownies (thinking surely this is not brownies the chocolate cake?). Set in 1930s at an all-girl school, there are Miss Jean Brodie and her set of six girls–her “crème de la crème”.  As a teacher Miss Brodie is highly opinionated about what should be taught, what is important, and what’s worth learning, often straying off the school’s curriculum path, to the horror of the school’s principal. The girls, as such impressionable ages (starting since they’re 10), for better or for worse devouring everything that is passed by their favorite teacher.

A couple of techniques Spark used in the book that really stood out for me were flash-forward (the reader is often given a glimpse of the future) and repetition. Now I dislike repetition in book (which is why I didn’t like The Road) so I wasn’t sure how I felt about it. For such a short book however, it helped to distinguish the multitude of characters. For examples, one of the girls is repeatedly described as the one “famous for sex”, one has “small, almost non-existent eyes”, one likes Math, one is good at gymnastic, and one dies in the fire.

I liked the intricacies of the characters and their relationships. As a small book, it contains a lot of ideas and an array of intriguing characters. So though The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie is not earth-shattering for me, it whet my appetite for Spark’s works and I will look out for more in the future.

I leave you with a passage that echoes what I often thought as a teenager.

“Supposing that passion struck upon them in the course of the evening and they were swept away into sexual intercourse? She saw the picture of it happening in her mind, and Sandy could not stand for this spoiling. She argued with herself, surely people have time to think, they have to stop to think while they are taking their clothes off, and if they stop to think, how can they be swept away?” ~ Sandy, p46

1961, 170 pp

First line
The boys, as they talked to the girls from Marcia Blaine School, stood on the far side of their bicycles holding the handlebars, which established a protective fence of bicycle between the sexes, and the impression that at any moment the boys were likely to be away.

Challenges/Projects
1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, Read the Book See the Movie

Also reviewed by
Arukiyomi | Books 4 Breakfast | Suko’s Notebook | A Work in Progress (this and other Spark’s books)

The Movie (1969)

There was a gap of a couple of months between me reading the book and watching the movie. I didn’t feel much about the book so I didn’t have high expectation. But after somewhat of a slow start, the movie almost suddenly became really really good! And I was left really impressed at the end of the movie! Maggie Smith was amazing in this role, like she’s born for it, like the screenplay was written for her! Little wonder then that she won Oscar for Best Actress in 1970 for the role of Miss Jean Brodie. It was the perfect cast.

But wait, there’s more! The girl who played Sandy (one of Miss Jean Brodie’s girl) was just as amazing! Unlike movies these days where people are usually cast for much younger roles, the girls here seem to be at the right age, like they are in the book (okay, I checked that Pamela Franklin, the girl who played Sandy, was 18-19 during the movie, so she’s actually older, but still.) In any way, she totally blew me away. What a shame that she doesn’t play another prominent role after this film and seems to disappear into obscurity.

All in all, it was a very enjoyable movie. It stays true to the characters and to the spirit of the book. The Brodie set was minimized into four girls instead of six, and a couple of girls were combined, but I think it worked just as well. Since the movie emphasized some of the scenes, I got to understand the characters even better than when I was reading the book. Odd I know. It rarely happens that a movie is better or on par with the book, but I think this might be just one of those cases.

Rating: 8/10

ps: There was nudity in the film. How shocking is that for a classic film such as this?

Prior to reading, I knew there was a lawyer as main character and I was expecting court scenes. But there was no court scene until the second half of the book, which was a peak too short finished too soon for me. However, looking back, I don’t think the court scene or the lawyer were ever the main focus of the book. To Kill A Mockingbird is essentially a coming-of-age story.

The narrator of the book is 6 year-old Scout. We have the privileged to view everything from her eyes. She has an older brother Jem, and father she calls Atticus (mom died). The maternal role in the house is often held by Calpurnia, a black maid who’s been with the family for the longest time. There are a lot of characters coming into view soon after: neighbors, friends, teachers, extended family. It’s a small town so everybody knows everybody and everybody has their own role to fit into: doctor, sheriff, lawyer, newspaper editor, judge, reverend, field owner, and so on.

Later on we find out that Atticus is given the task to defend a black man in court for alleged rape of a white girl, so racism is obviously one of the main themes. But not only that, with inquisitive curious Scout, the book gets to question many things in the world. About poverty, school system, role of women and womanhood, justice, fairness (or the lack of them), and evils in the world.

I admit, during the reading of the book, I thought it was pretty flat. The first half of the book was mostly about two-three kids running amok in the neighborhood. It is well written book full of gentle humor and I enjoyed reading it but there were very few things that made me want to pick up the book once I put it down. I wondered if the greatness of the book is mostly for the Americans. It seems to be The American book if you want to know about Southern US in 1930s. Is it great for nostalgic reason for the Americans? Is it as great looking from foreigner’s point of view who has completely different background and history? I wasn’t convinced.

I watched the movie (more on that below) soon after reading the book and read other people’s reviews. I’m thinking there are a lot of elements contained in this one small book that it’s possible to not pay attention to them the first time around and get more out of succeeding reads. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the books seems to have high re-readability value. Also, the main characters are drawn very strong that I’m sure they will stay with me for a long time. I adored feisty Scout, moody Jem, and admired The Great Atticus. Which other book features a fist-fighting 6 year-old girl? She almost sounds too good to be true! Then there’s the role of Dill (Scout and Jem’s friend) who is based of Truman Capote, my favorite author (Lee and Capote were childhood friends. Lee went together with Capote for the research of Capote’s In Cold Blood). Therefore after much consideration, I’m giving To Kill A Mockingbird:

1960, 281 pp

It’s a worthy read. Definitely.

After finishing the book I just found out that there’s no better time for me to read it as this year is the 50th anniversary of To Kill A Mockingbird and there are celebrations all over. Both she is too fond of books and Capricious Reader are holding a month-long celebration in July. Have you read To Kill A Mockingbird? If you haven’t, there’s no better time than NOW :).

ps: Below is the Australian version of 50th anniversary of To Kill A Mockingbird by Random House. I like it!

First line
When he was nearly thirteen, my bother Jem got his arm badly broken at the elbow.

Awards
1961 Pulitzer Prize

Quotes

“Until I feared I would lose it, I never loved to read. One does not love breathing.” ~ p18

“… one must lie under certain circumstances and at all times when one can’t do anything about them.” ~ p128

Challenges/Projects
Book Awards IV (book #11), Read the Book, See the Movie (pair #5), 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, The Pulitzer

Also reviewed by
Rebecca Reads | Serendipity | Graasland | Booklust | The Reading Life

The Film

The black and white 1962 movie starring Gregory Peck won him Oscar for Best Actor. It also won Best Art Direction and Best Writing. Mary Badham who played Scout was nominated for Best Supporting Actress and the movie was nominated for more categories.

In short, I thought the movie was great. Of course there are a lot of things that got cut, but you’d expect that for book to movie adaptation. In the movie Atticus and the court scene seems to get the most attention, not Scout and her growing up. But the mood and the general atmosphere stay true to the book, and Atticus in the movie is exactly like what I imagined him to be.

I love the scene where all the black people in the court balconies wait until everybody has gone except Atticus downstairs, and stand up as a sign of respect. A great cinematic touch. What I was really disappointed to be cut off was the part where Scout and Jem went to Calpurnia’s church. It’s probably one of my favorite scenes in the book, that shows the tension between the black and the white. In the movie with the omission of the church scene the kids suddenly meet Reverend in the court, who comes out of nowhere with no background story ever told, so it felt really odd.

After watching the movie I just realized that I watched Gregory Peck in Roman Holiday before, in which he played with Audrey Hepburn, my movie heroine. Two great movies in a row. Nods for Gregory Peck.

Rating: 8/10

Also reviewed by
Ripple Effects (with pictures of the DVD set) | Rebecca Reads (who hated the movie)

Before reading the book, I never had much impression of Alice. She was a rather dull observant in a wacky world. How pleasantly surprised I was to find that the character Alice in book has so much more! She is opinionated, she likes to daydream and talk to herself, she likes to assert everybody (which makes the creatures around her unhappy more often than not), she is adventurous, but also has impeccable manners. In short, she has personality! Which is really what is lacking in the movies.

And the language! How delightful, playful, and surprisingly, modern! It does not at all read like a classic (not that there’s anything wrong with classic). It just felt so familiar, as if it is written in our times. I could not believe the book is written in 1800s.

Then the world! We are all familiar with Alice’s world from various sources, but I was so happy to finally know how it was originally presented. There are a few creatures that never made the cut into the Disney movie, namely the Gryphon and the Mock Turtle. Though probably for a good reason as I thought it was the least exciting part of the book. Then the Duchess, her pig baby, and the excessive-pepper cook. And do you know that Tweedledee and Tweedledum are not in the original Alice? I was waiting for their appearance as they’re ones of my favorite characters, yet they never came up. Apparently they appear in the sequel (Through the Looking Glass), which is included in the same Vintage copy I have, but I’ve decided to save it for later and write a separate post as I loved the first one so much I can’t wait to talk about it here.

My favorite parts are the scene after Alice cries and falls into her own pool of tears and meet all the birds and mouse. The part where the Mouse starts to give what according to him is the driest speech and where they have running competition in circle almost made me fall off my chair laughing (figuratively speaking, as I read in bed). Then the trial in the last two chapters! My gosh the trial is just out-of-this-world hilarious! I don’t think it can get any funnier! My words can’t explain how funny the whole scene is!

I don’t know why it took me so long to pick up this book and why I missed it as a child (I’m guessing it never got translated in my birth country). But really, I have a feeling that it’s one of those books that you may appreciate more as an adult. For me it is anyway. Now I understand how the story could stand the test of time for so long (145 years this year). I honestly think Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is work of a genius.

1865, 150 pp

My Vintage copy of Alice contains the original illustrations by John Tenniel (above). I read it in conjunction with another copy of Alice I borrowed off the library which was published in 2009 by Walker Books (Australia), illustrated by Robert Ingpen (right). The new illustrations use colored pencils and look absolutely amazing. However Alice and everybody in it looks so grave to the point of looking sad, which seems like an odd decision. Why would you draw such solemn characters for such a funny tale? The contemporary illustrator gave such high praises for Tenniel, the original illustrator, and it warmed my heart. He stated that the creative partnership between Carroll and Tenniel is “unmatched in the history of our literature”.

“It is for these reasons that my pictorial collection of Alice through her dream underground for these modern times, is dedicated in awe to John Tenniel, whose skill and imagination made his work shine out at a time when black and white engraving from drawings was the only practical means of print reproduction for the illustrator.” ~ Robert Ingpen

I rarely quote a dedication, but this one just touched me. Such a humble man.

Alice and the Caterpillar, by John Tenniel

Some interesting facts about Alice. Lewis Carroll is the pen name used by Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. He wrote Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland for three daughters of a Dean of Christ Church College, Oxford, one of them named Alice Pleasance Liddell, the middle of three sisters. Carroll was a mathematician and worked as mathematics lecturer until his death. When Caroll first wrote the story by hand, he purposely left space for 37 illustrations which were added later by John Tenniel. After coming out of copyright in 1907, 42 years after its publication, over 200 illustrators other than Tenniel have interpreted the story, many paid homage to the original visions of Carroll and Tenniel through their depictions of Alice and the other characters. Carroll realized that the book’s illustrations were as important as his words, for, as Alice herself muses in the opening paragraph of the book, “… what is the use of a book… without pictures or conversation?”

Lewis Carroll and John Tenniel

Also check out First Tuesday Book Club episode on Alice in Wonderland. They were all over it!

First line
Alice was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank, and of having nothing to do: once or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, “and what is the use of a book,” thought Alice, “without pictures or conversations?”

Challenges/Projects
Once Upon a Time IV (book #5), Read the Book See the Movie (pair #4), 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, Disney Literature Challenge

Also reviewed by
Loved! Ready When You Are, C.B. | Sasha & The Silverfish (with illustrations by Camille Rose Garcia)
Didn’t :(. su[shu]

The Films

I watched Tim Burton’s Alice months ago, but I think I’m going to talk about that one after I read Through the Looking Glass. This time around hubby and I were curious about the other adaptations of Alice apart from the Disney cartoon. So we tried two versions: the 1972 and 1999 (there are an incredible amount of movie adaptations of Alice!)

We tried the 1999 version first (right), the one with Whoopi Goldberg and Ben Kingsley, but quickly got bored. So after 20 minutes or so we tried the 1972 one (left), which we liked more and watched until the end. It stays quite true to the story, with the appearance of the Gryphon, Mock Turtle, the Duchess and Pepper-woman (who are missing in the Disney cartoon).

But you see, the problem is Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland is one hell of a book to turn into a movie. I do think it is quite impossible to adapt the book, no matter how many times people try. The humour and the deft language is completely lost. Sure the world is full of strange creatures, but that’s about it.

I haven’t watched all the adaptations ever made (and I don’t think I will), but I will bet a good money that the Disney version is probably the best of the lot and as best as you can get for Alice. Though it surely has not beaten the book, nuh-uh. I haven’t re-watched the Disney version for this round of my Disney Literature Challenge (mostly because I just realized I don’t own the DVD. How can that be? I thought I owned all Classic Disney DVDs.) but I don’t need to. We have a clear winner.

Disney Literature Challenge Round 2

Disney vs. Carroll
on Alice Adventure’s in Wonderland

Well, what do you know? Carroll won the battle. (What, you mean I wasn’t clear enough?)

Current Score
Disney – 1 vs. Authors – 1

As I assume the main plot of the book is no secret to most people, I’m going to write my thoughts with no worry of possible spoilers.

Pride and Prejudice is my very first Jane Austen and it took me some time to get used to her style. I found the beginning was very very slow. I didn’t care much for the characters and thought their conversations were inconsequential.

After what seemed like the longest 50 pages of my life, it started to flow, and the pace picked up after 70-80 pages. The rest got easier, which means I started to enjoy it as a novel, not just as a piece of classic that I felt the need to tackle.

I watched the movie adaptation with Keira Knightley years ago on the plane, but couldn’t remember anything about it. So I basically entered the book knowing almost nothing. Preconception that I had before reading: Darcy and Elizabeth hated each other, and only at the end that they realized they actually loved each other, ended with dramatic running and chasing Hollywood style.

Result: WRONG! Darcy takes interest in Elizabeth very early on in the book. What I believe as their very first flirt:

“‘I have been used to consider poetry as the food of love,’ said Darcy.

‘Of a fine, stout, healthy love it may.–Every thing nourishes what is strong already. But if it be only a slight, thin sort of inclination, I am convinced that one good sonnet will starve it entirely away.’ [Elizabeth]” ~ p40

Not to say that it is smooth for Darcy and Elizabeth at the beginning. Darcy is aloof and that pisses everybody off, including Lizzy.

“‘Nothing is more deceitful’, said Darcy, ‘than the appearance of humility. It is often only carelessness of opinion, and sometimes an indirect boast.’” ~ p43

Elizabeth felt very distant to me at first. I found it hard to connect to her. Only after the event between her friend Ms Lucas and Mr Collins did I started to feel for her, with her. I got her shock, her disdain, her defeat, and her hit of reality.

“‘I am not romantic, you know. I never was. I ask only a comfortable home; and considering Mr Collins’s character, connections, and situation in life, I am convinced that my chance of happiness with him is as fair as most people can boast on entering the marriage state.’ [Charlotte]

It was a long time before she [Elizabeth] became at all reconciled to the idea of so unsuitable a match. The strangeness of Mr Collins’s making two offers of marriage within three days, was nothing in comparison of his being now accepted. She had always felt that Charlotte’s opinion of matrimony was not exactly like her own, but she could not have supposed it possible that when called into action, she would have sacrificed every better feeling to worldly advantage. Charlotte the wife of Mr Collins, was a most humiliating picture!–And to the pang of a friend disgracing herself and sunk in her esteem, was added to the distressing conviction that it was impossible for that friend to be tolerably happy in the lot she had chosen.” ~ p116, 117

I almost felt sorrowful at this point and wasn’t sure why. Then it hit me that something similar has happened to me in the past. Not to the extend of marriage of course, but it did involve a loser of a guy, a rejection on my behalf, a few days gap, and acceptance of a dear friend to the aforementioned guy (then her broken heart not long after).

“You shall not, for the sake of one individual, change the meaning of principle and integrity, nor endeavour to persuade yourself or me, that selfishness is prudence, and insensibility of danger, security for happiness.” ~ Elizabeth, p125

I saw Elizabeth as an idealist, a perfectionist–characteristics that I could relate with, and so I started to get a grip of her character.

“‘But that expression of “violently in love” is so hackneyed, so doubtful, so indefinite, that it gives me very little idea. It is as often applied to feelings which arise from an half-hour’s acquiantance, as to a real, strong attachment.’” ~ Mrs Gardiner, p129

Few characters can be as amusing as Mr Collins. He has the knack to insult people in dignified way! One of my favorite insults of his:

“‘Do not make yourself uneasy, my dear cousin, about your apparel. Lady Catherine is far from requiring that elegance of dress in us, which becomes herself and daughter. I would advise you merely to put on whatever of your clothes is superior to the rest, there is no occasion for anything more. Lady Catherine will not think the worse of you for being simply dressed. She likes to have the distinction of rank preserved.’” ~ Mr Collins, p146

It’s very hard for me to rate this book as it is, as I know that it is one of the most widely read books and is studied as a piece of literature at many schools. The language is no doubt articulate and classy. The plot however, is not my kind of story. The basic plot about the richest prideful guy in the county falling head over heels with a lively girl from a lower class seems to be too Cinderella-like, and especially overused in these modern days, though it might have been ground breaking at the time of writing in the 18th century. On the other hand, it was really insightful for me to learn people’s lifestyle during the time. The inheritance laws and marriage financial settlement always amuse me.

A few things I never quite understood:
What is Lady Catherine’s profession? How does she have so high of rank? I understand that it’s something to do with church. But what is it exactly?
Who determines how Mr Bennet should divide his inheritance? Why doesn’t he have any control over who he inherits his fortune to after he dies?
When does Mr Darcy actually propose to Elizabeth the second time? One of the most important event and I seem to have missed it. I was only aware of it when Lizzy tells Jane about it. How? Which sentence exactly?

I’m not sure if P&P made me fall in love with Jane Austen, but I quite enjoyed it and plan to read another book or two of hers. I have Emma in mind for my next Austen. How about you? Was P&P your first Austen? Did it make you a fan?

If you’re a long time fan of Austen, which book of hers is your favorite? Why?

I would love to watch the BBC 1995 adaptation as lots of people said it’s really really good. I have reserved the DVDs from the library, so more on that soon.

1813, 352 pp

First line
It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife.

Challenges
Women Unbound (fiction #5), 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

The Read-along

I made a call to Pride and Prejudice first timers to read the book in February and a few people have expressed their interests. Let me know if you do end up reading it and I’ll link to your posts below. Or you could just drop a comment about your reading experience!

What happens to the Other P&P First Timers?

They finished it!

Vivienne @ Seredipity: “I really did love this book and will be over the moon to read more of Jane Austen’s books, though I have been told that this is the best of the bunch.”

another cookie crumbles: “I really did enjoy the book, although, maybe not the story in itself, if that makes sense? Again, I attribute that to me already knowing the way the plot would turn, and hence, missing out on the feel-good factor. Also, some of the romanticism and mushiness was a little much for me, but, I guess that was part and parcel of the nineteenth century, and maybe, in another lifetime, I was Elizabeth Bennet. Well, a girl can dream. :)“

David @ Absorbed in Words: “I should say, it is not the kind of story that should generally hold my interest. But it’s a fine piece. And the fact that the author was a woman impressed me immensely.”

Not yet, but going to! I hope.

Jackie @ Farm Lane Book Blog

Even Cthulhu, Satan, Dracula, and Darth Vader read it!

Thank you all for joining! I will update the links to your review once you post it! Let me know if I miss you!

People often started their reviews by saying this book so-and-so made them cry. That doesn’t mean anything to me. I don’t cry for a book.

Little did I know that I would begin my review now by saying this book made me cry! And not just a tear or two, but more like weeping for 5 minutes. At least TWO times! The last time I cried because of a book was probably The Time Traveler’s Wife, which I read in 2004.

Charlie was born retarded. He lives his entire life with not much more than broken memories and haziness. But Charlie wants to be smart. He knows he’s lacking something and that he wants that something so he can be like everybody else. One day an opportunity arrives. A research facility needs a human guinea pig. If the experiment is successful, Charlie would become.. normal, though of course, there’s a chance that it might fail. Charlie doesn’t care. He’s going to do anything to be smarter.

I have a little confession to make. For me, it’s very important to be smart. As a kid I was obsessed with IQ tests. I started doing them since I was three. I knew I wasn’t a genius, but my IQ was high enough to be, say, the highest in class, and in general, to get away with a lot of things. Some people might be the funny one, the pretty one, the talkative one, the kind one. But me, I need to be the smart one. Most of the time this thought lays deep at my subconscious mind, but at certain times when I feel my brain fails me big time, I could get pretty depressed, and the worms are out in the open. What if I’m just not that smart? What would I be? WHAT IF? –I would heap on my despair, sink in my misery.

I could relate with Charlie in many ways. I always feel the need to be smart. I understand how the little child in us always needs to get our parents’ approval. Look at me Ma! I am smart! I am somebody!

Boy, did I cry!

The book is told in a series of Charlie’s personal journal, so we could see how he progresses and gets smarter, then later finds out how things were never what he thought they were when he lived in his blurry state.

You know how sometimes even a good book slows its pace at some parts? It never happened with this book. The pace was good from beginning til end. Every page was a joy to read. Not only that, it’s packed with emotional punch. One thing for sure, I would never see a “slow” person the same way ever again.

I can’t recommend this book highly enough. To anybody! I love you Daniel Keyes! Thank you for your contribution to this world! (sorry, that just gushed out of me) I can’t believe my first two books of the year were so 5 stars! I have a good feeling for this year.

1966, 216 pp

First line
Dr Strauss says I shoud rite down what I think and remembir and evrey thing that happins to me from now on.

Awards
1966 Nebula Award for Best Novel

Quotes

“.. Miss Kinnian says dont worry spelling is not suppose to make sence.” ~ p24

“Now I understand one of the important reasons for going to college and getting an education is to learn that the things you’ve believed in all your life aren’t true, and that nothing is what it appears to be.” ~ p50

Challenges
Book Awards IV (book #2), Read the Book See the Movie (book #1)

Also reviewed by
Loved it! — Farm Lane Books Blog | Savidge Reads | Novel Insight | Reading Matters
Not quite. — Books for Breakfast

Charly (1968)

I had reservation about watching the movie, because the book was just SO good. There’s no way the movie can even compare. But I saw Cliff Robertson won Oscar for Best Actor in 1969 for the film, so I gave it a chance.

Well, I was right. It’s not horrible, but it’s nothing compared to the book. In the movie we lose a lot of Charlie’s inner thoughts, which are the main point of the book. A lot of his external and internal conflicts were cut as well, leaving mainly his love interest.

I would give the movie a pass.

Rating: 6/10

Apart from my reading challenges, I read the book (and watch the movie) to participate on Carl’s Sci Fi Experience 2010 (run in the month of January and February). Are you participating? You still have time if you want to! :)

After Flowers for Algernon I definitely have a lot more confidence in trying the Sci-Fi genre. A few years ago I told the person who gave me the book that “I don’t read science fiction.” But when we discussed some books that we’ve read, I mentioned The Time Traveller’s Wife and Kindred. He quickly pointed out that I do read sci-fi. Sci-fi does not mean all outer-space and machines. I agree that we really shouldn’t pigeon-hole books into a certain genre, and avoid them as a result. Imagine what great books that we could be missing out! I do plan to read more of what is called sci-fi books in the future. Nebula and Hugo award winners would be a great start. At the moment I’m thinking Stranger in a Strange Land.

Can you think of any books that you are passionate about that fall into the sci-fi genre?

1% Well-Read challenge was going from 1 March to 31 December 2009 for the first option, which was to read 1% (10 books) out of the 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die. I chose to follow the original list published in 2006 (there was another updated list published in 2008, which total combined of both adds up to around 1300 books).

I read exactly 10 books:

1) The Color Purple by Alice Walker (no. 272, finished 04/09, )
2) Disgrace by J. M. Coetzee (no. 77, finished 06/09, )
3) The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams (no. 301, finished 07/09, )
4) Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides (no. 33, finished 08/09, )
5) Silk by Alessandro Baricco (no. 101, finished 09/09, )
6) Breakfast at Tiffany’s by Truman Capote (no. 467, finished 09/09, )
7) A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens (no. 913, finished 09/09, )
8) Dracula by Bram Stoker (no. 784, finished 10/09, )
9) If On A Winter’s Night A Traveler by Italo Calvino (no. 300, finished 11/09, )
10) The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins (no. 880, finished 12/09, )

I’m very happy that I completed this challenge, because I was very pessimistic about it at the beginning. In fact, I read 12 books from the list in 2009 (2 before the challenge started). That makes me 2.79% well-read so far :)

I loved many books from the above list as you can see my ratings, but my personal favorite is Middlesex, which became one of my top books of all time.

The third option of the challenge is still going on until 31 March 2010 (requires 13 books from combined list). I don’t know if 3m is going to host another one, but I’m going to continue reading from the list as a personal project. Thank you for hosting 3m!

Once I finished, I was thinking for a bit, does it have to be that long? The book is a tome at 609 pages and it took me 3.5 weeks to get through. But then I couldn’t think of anything that can or should be cut off. There are probably a couple of longish parts that we can do without, but it wouldn’t be The Woman in White. Moreover, I loved the writing so much that I just enjoyed the entire journey.

The novel is told in collection of journals and letters, so we had a few point of views. I don’t normally like the multiple POVs format, but this works very well, in very believable way. There’s a good reason why collection of the narrations comes together. I loved how the characters talk in such articulate, sleek way (why don’t we talk like that anymore?). They’re babbling in such grace that I could just read them on and on.

A bit of synopsis: A drawing teacher by the name Walter Hartright is offered a job to teach two ladies by the name Marian Halcombe and Laura Farlie who are half-sisters. Not long after, spark grows between Walter and Laura, which is quite a disaster since Laura is apparently engaged to another man — who is more of her stature, than poor Hartright. Oh, and of course there’s the woman in white whom Hartright meets at one night by pure accident and helps out of pity or curiosity. The woman is later discovered to have some connection with the two ladies’ family.

Laura is the typical weak beauty while Marian is strong and smart. I’m somewhat disappointed that the character Marian was made ugly by Collins [p28]. Why is that? If Marian was as pretty as Laura, would Hartright fall in love with the same woman? I couldn’t dismiss the thought for the entire book, which annoyingly made Hartright somewhat shallow in my eyes. Needless to say, I was never fond of Laura. She’s a perfect damsel in distress and so meek it’s frustrating. On the other hand, Marian is the perfect female heroine: intelligent, selfless, opinionated.

“Women can resist a man’s love, a man’s fame, a man’s personal appearance, and a man’s money, but they cannot resist a man’s tongue when he knows how to talk to them.” ~ Marian, p246

When Laura’s father died, she was left with her uncle, Frederick Fairlie, a lazy self-pitying man. There were very few times that a fictional character got so annoying that I could hardly continue a book. Mr Fairlie was one of them.

“Nothing, in my opinion, sets the odious selfishness of mankind in such a repulsively vivid light as the treatment, in all classes of society, which the Single people receive at the hands of the Married people. When you have once shown yourself too considerate and self-denying to add a family of your own to an already overcrowded population, you are vindictively marked out by your married friends, who have no similar consideration and no similar self-denial, as the recipient of half their conjugal troubles, and the born friend of all their children.” ~ Frederick Fairlie, p332

The Woman in White is in the genre of what is called Sensation Novel, which typically focuses on shocking subject matters, in this case: forgery, treachery, murder, insanity, theft, kidnapping, bigamy. It is probably my first experience reading Sensation Novel and I can definitely see the appeal.

For those of you who have not read the book, please beware of spoiler below. (Highlight to read)

** SPOILER warning **

I just have to mention that it’s interesting that nobody was murdered as part of the mystery. I thought, SURELY somebody must have killed somebody! The crime felt so mild compared to what we have these days! (real life or in books)

** END of SPOILER **

In conclusion, I am very impressed. It’s readable, enjoyable classic. If only more classics are this enjoyable to read. I would love to read more Wilkie Collins. The Moonstone sounds great too. Interestingly his life story sounds almost as interesting as his stories! What with the two mistresses he never married and their children.

1859-1860, 609 pp

For Wilkie Collins tour, 5 of us have chosen to read The Woman in White: Reviews by Lola, Fizzy Thoughts, just add books, Book Gazing. Check out the rest of the tour for more Collins!

This week of the tour:

December 8, 2009 - It’s All About Books Review: Hide and Seek
December 9, 2009 – Me!
December 10, 2009 - Linus’s Blanket General: An Overview of Wilkie Collins

Challenges
I’m going to count this book for Women Unbound Challenge as I think it’s a pretty good book to get a glimpse of women’s roles and social status in 1800s England. The marriage settlement was most interesting to me.

1% Well-Read (book #10), Women Unbound (book #1), 1001 Books Before You Die, Wilkie-Collins Mini Challenge (Did I just sneakily slip in another challenge?)

The book is told in alternate chapters between the main story of you the Reader, and the chapters of books you are reading. In some bizarre out-of-this-world circumstances, trying to look for the right complete book, you keep getting different books, and unfinished ones at that.

The main story is very hard to summarize. It’s about books, readers, authors, publishing industry, translations, and banned books. There’s this passage at the first chapter that I’d love to share:

“In the shop window you have promptly identified the cover with the title you were looking for. Following this visual trail, you have forced your way through the shop past the thick barricade of Books You Haven’t Read, which were frowning at you from the tables and shelves, trying to cow you. But you know you must never allow yourself to be awed, that among them there extend for acres and acres the Books You Needn’t Read, the Books Made For Purposes Other Than Reading, Books Read Even Before You Open Them Since They Belong To The Category Of Books Read Before Being Written. And thus you pass the outer girdle of ramparts, but then you are attacked by the infantry of the Books That If You Had More Than One Life You Would Certainly Also Read But Unfortunately Your Days Are Numbered. With a rapid maneuver you bypass them and move into the phalanxes of the Books You Mean To Read But There Are Others You Must Read First, the Books Too Expensive Now And You’ll Wait Till They’re Remaindered, the Books ditto When They Come Out In Paperback, Books You Can Borrow From Somebody, Books That Everybody’s Read So It’s As If You Had Read Them, Too. Eluding these assaults, you come up beneath the towers of the fortress, where other troops are holding out:
the Books You’ve Been Planning To Read For Ages,
the Books You’ve Been Hunting For Years Without Success,
the Books Dealing With Something You’re Working On At The Moment,
the Books You Want To Own So They’ll Be Handy Just In Case,
the Books You Could Put Aside Maybe To Read This Summer,
the Books You Need To Go With Other Books On Your Shelves,
the Books That Fill You With Sudden, Inexplicable Curiosity, Not Easily Justified.

Now you have been able to reduce the countless embattled troops to an array that is, to be sure, very large but still calculable in a finite number; but this relative relief is then undermined by the ambush of the Books Read Long Ago Which It’s Now Time To Reread and the Books You’ve Always Pretended To Have Read And Now It’s Time To Sit Down And Really Read Them.” ~ p 5-6

I believe a lot of you understand the experience above :)

There are some great parts and the idea of the book itself is just brilliant, but after a while I found it very exhausting to read as it opens a new chapter of a different book on and on. The book is only 254 pages but it took me ages to finish and it felt super long. The problem for me is, I find about the first quarter of any book is usually the most tiring, takes the most energy, and is probably least interesting — while for some people it’s probably the most exciting part. Therefore I found it exhausting to enter a new story, in fact a dozen of them, in one book. It probably works better for people who are fan of short stories. I admit that near the end I couldn’t pretend to care about the fragments of the stories that the Reader was reading anymore and started to speed read, as I know I wouldn’t see the end of them.

On the note of the translation, I have suspicion that the translation is not great. It’s often read like a technical book and quite dry at times.

I would recommend the book for people who like quirky books and short stories. I would like to read more Calvino’s in the future. Any that you’d highly recommend?

1979 (Italian) – 1981 (English), 254 pp

First line
“You are about to begin reading Italo Calvino’s new novel, If on a winter’s night a traveler.”

Last line
And you say, “Just a moment, I’ve almost finished If on a winter’s night a traveler by Italo Calvino.”

Challenge
Lost in Translation (book #5), Orbis Terrarum 2009 (book #10), (Another) 1% Well-Read (book #9), 1001 Books Before You Die, Reading the World

Also reviewed by
Liked it! – A Striped Armchair | Bending Bookshelf | Shelf Love | 3000 Books | A Guy’s Moleskin Notebook | books i done read | A Damned Conjuror | Booknotes by Lisa | Life and Times of a “New” New Yorker
Unsure? – Things Mean A Lot (probably the closest to my opinion)