THINGS FALL APART BY CHINUA ACHEBE

Before I’d ever read this book, before I even knew the basic outline of the story, I knew that Things Fall Apart was “supposed” to be a book about the advent of colonialism in Nigeria and the resulting destruction of the indigenous culture. But well over half the book is about Onkonkwo, a successful farmer and leader who is respected (but not particularly loved) in his village. Frankly, Onkonkwo is as rigid and unyielding as any intolerant, colonizing Englishman and/or Christian  missionary. I mean, there has to be a reason that Achebe made his central character so very unsympathetic. Personally, I think that any forceful challenge to Onkonkwo’s belief system would have knocked him for a loop. His entire life was blind faith in tradition, regardless of how such tradition made him feel or how it affected his loved ones and I am not sure just how much this book was intended to be an indictment of European colonialism as I had been led to believe. I realize that Achebe wrote further books that are loosely considered to be part of a series, so perhaps those books address this topic more specifically.

I was not super keen on the storytelling style of this book. It just is not my taste; very simplistic and bare-bones, which totally suits the story, but it isn’t something I particularly enjoy. And the title, a reference to a poem by Yeats (which I only know because I think Picard quoted on Star Trek Next Generation once), belies that simplicity. What I did like were the little authorial hints about other villages with other traditions, and the glimpse into a tradition and culture which is now most certainly non-existent in the form presented in the novel, although bits and pieces surely remain today in modern Nigeria. Even though I didn’t really love the writing style, I think that this is a book that can be understood and appreciated on a variety of levels. It is deceptively simple and subtle.

I read this book for the category “Classic by a Non-White Author” in the 2016 Back to the Classic Challenge hosted by Karen on the blog Books and Chocolate. I am glad I finally got to it since it has been on my list for many years and particularly I wanted to read it before I tackled Chigozie Obioma’s The Fishermen since my Father told me that one could see a definite link between the two books.

Lolita by Vladimir Nabukov

No plot summary needed because I think most people are well acquainted with this particular story. I read this book as my choice for the “Banned or Censored Classic” for the 2016 Back to the Classics Challenge hosted by Karen at the blog Books and Chocolate. This book was banned in the UK  and in France, in the late 1950s although it was eventually published in both countries. I can’t find any Internet evidence, however, that it was banned in the U.S. at all which really surprised me, given that Forever Amber was banned less than 10 years earlier and having read both, I would say that Lolita is more explicit and much, much more disturbing.

I read Reading Lolita in Teheran a few years ago. Probably mostly because the title alludes to it, but I specifically recall  Azar Nafisi’s deconstruction of this novel.  In particular she elucidated on how Humbert Humbert not only physically imprisons Delores, but how he denies her her own existence outside of himself figuratively and metaphorically as well. This is something I thought a lot about as I read Lolita.    

 I know that Nabokov is revered for his writing but I wasn’t really able to appreciate it as such. I realize there is a lot that I missed; references to other works, etc. But even if I could unequivocally state that this was the best written novel ever, it is, in my opinion, a very unpleasant story and no amount of Humbert Humbert's charm can deflect from that.  There are a few books that I have read where I am sure that I would have appreciated them more when I was younger, but this is a book that I am glad I read when I was older and somewhat wiser. I don’t know if I would have been able to see past some of the roadblocks that Humbert puts up had I been a younger and more naïve reader.

I don’t know what Nabokov’s intent was when writing this book, but clearly publishers and the public at large have also been seduced by Humbert Humbert. Just look at the freaking cover art for most of the editions of it (thankfully mine published by Everyman’s Library only has a photo of the author); why is Delores objectified again and again? Why do we use the term culturally “Lolita” to mean a “nymphette” as defined by Humbert? These facts are as disturbing as the book itself.

GREENBANKS BY DOROTHY WHIPPLE

photo credit

I chose Greenbanks by Dorothy Whipple for my “Classic by a Woman Author” for the 2016 Back to the Classics Challenge hosted by Karen at the blog Books and Chocolate.  This is the third title that I have read by Whipple after The Priory and Someone at a Distance, both of which I just now realize I read for the last two Back to the Classics Challenges! 

I own all three of these books in the Persephone re-issue editions. Whipple was a very popular author in her day, but fell out of favor (and print) until many of her titles were resurrected by Persephone. I believe she is currently the author with the most titles re-published by Persephone; they currently offer seven of her novels and one short story collection.

Greenbanks is primarily the story of Louisa Ashton, the mother and grandmother of a large, middle class family whom she raised in the family home of Greenbanks somewhere in northern England. The book is set in the first quarter of the 20^th century and there is a very definite theme running through the book regarding the options and restrictions placed on women across the generations, since Louisa grew up very much a Victorian while her granddaughter Rachel comes of age post WWI.  While Louisa’s grown children and their wives and husbands often mystify her, she has a very special relationship with granddaughter Rachel.

There isn’t much of a plot, but it is easy for the Whipple-loving reader to become immersed in the world of Greenbanks without it because she wrote so well and her characters are so exceptionally well-drawn.  Outside of Louisa and Rachel, who are very sympathetic characters, it is worth mentioning Ambrose, Rachel’s father and the insufferable husband of Louisa’ daughter Letty. Most of the time reader just wants to slap him, but occasionally there are small glimpses into his interior and his genuine incomprehension of other people and their motives and behaviors.  I did actually feel a bit sorry for him from time to time.

I find there to be something comforting about the way Whipple writes and the kinds of stories she tells, even though she doesn’t shy away from unpleasant subjects or characters. There is a smooth quality to her writing style, if that makes any sense, that keeps me turning the pages and I very much look forward to trying one of the further 4 Whipple titles from Persephone in future. 

A Separate Peace - Back to the Classics 2016

I first read A Separate Peace as a high school freshman. I can see why this book would be placed on a high school reading list: it is short, the language isn’t too complicated and there are some obvious themes of guilt and redemption to be mined for essays.  This book screams loss of innocence/coming of age.

I didn’t remember too much from back when I first read it, over 30 years ago. On the second read I was reminded of The Lord of the Flies, just with the savagery buried much, much deeper under the surface.  

A Separate Peace is rather dark story of adolescent male friendship.   The narration is given in flashback from the perspective of Gene Forrester, who attended an all-male boarding school located in New England in the mid 1940’s, just on the cusp of the United States entering the war.  Gene is from the south and it is only just barely referenced that his background is less grand, less old-south aristocratic, than he projects to his classmates. To me, this hints at Gene having the tiniest of a chip on his shoulder.

Gene’s roommate and best friend is Phineas (Finny), who is a natural leader, charismatic and popular at the school. Again, it isn’t explicit, but I think it is suggested that Finny is from the right kind of New England Brahman family.  So in short, Gene doesn’t really belong and Phineas does, or at least this is Gene’s perception.

Gene admires Finny, but also wants to set himself apart from him and be recognized for his own merits at school. Gene suspects that Finny is trying to bring him down and sabotage him academically.  Personally, I think the book is ambiguous on whether or not there is any truth in Gene’s paranoia and since the reader doesn’t get any direct insight into Phineas’ headspace, it is hard to say if he is genuine or not.  In any case, Gene’s perceived competition with Finney over their last summer term leads to tragic results.

I re-read this title for the category “Re-Read a Classic from School” in the 2016 Back to the Classic Challenge hosted by Karen on the blog Books and Chocolate.

The Grapes of Wrath-Back to the Classics 2016

My pick for the 20th Century Classic (any book published between 1900 and 1966) for the 2016 Back to the Classics Challenge hosted on Books and Chocolate was The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck. My completion of this title is a double whammy, since I am slowly working my way through reading all of the Modern Library's Top 100 and this book is on that list as well. This puts me at now having read 68 out of the 100.   : )

The following quote from Steinbeck about the creation of the Grapes of Wrath was included the introduction by Robert Dermott in the Penguin edition that I read: “I have done my damndest to rip a reader’s nerves to rags …” He certainly met his objective as far as I am concerned; this book wore me out and it made me mad. I admire the novel for its tenacity, but reading it was like figuratively getting punched repeatedly. There were very few light moments, such as when the two younger Joad children use a flush toilet for the first time.

It is amazing to me that the book was researched, written and published during the Great Depression; Steinbeck was writing about something that was happening in real time which gives the novel a real sense of urgency and anger I think. I can understand also why its publication was is/was controversial. Not only is it irreligious and frank about sex, it also is a call to arms politically. However, it is important to note, that regardless of how liberal this book’s politics are, there is only one brief mention of the non-white migrant farm workers of this era. This is not their story even though they must have suffered just as much. And even more discouraging is to think that the type of human exploitation explored in the novel is not something of the past, but continues to happen even now, over three quarters of a century later.

The book has an interesting structure as the longer chapters that chronologically recount the Joad family’s journey from the Oklahoma dust bowl to the alleged paradise of California is interspersed with shorter chapters that read almost like sermons or Tom Waits lyrics.  I found it a challenging read, mostly due to the content.  I had to make myself read parts of it, so I was glad of those shorter chapters because the provided a break from the downward spiral of the family's prospects as they move west.  All in all, a very powerful book which I am glad to have finally read.

Frankenstein by Mary Shelly

I found it interesting that unlike other classic literary horror characters such as Dracula or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, there is almost nothing in the novel Frankenstein that corresponds with the popular image of Dr. Frankenstein and his monster or the 1931 movie.  The introduction by Maurice Hindel from the beautiful Penguin clothbound classic edition that I read (pictured above) notes that Shelley incorporated what was then cutting edge science (galvanism, ie electricity) to allow Frankenstein to bring his creation to life. But it wasn’t even raining on the night of the monster’s creation in the book…so no thunder or lightening needed.  In fact, there is no description of the making of the monster at all; it mostly happens off the page.

What I like most about the book (besides its length, only 225 pages!) was its structure.  It starts off as a series of letters from a dilettante arctic explorer Captain Walton to his sister back in England. In his letters, he tells of rescuing a man who is near death with cold and exhaustion. Once this man is nursed back to health, he relates to Walton his story about why he is alone out on the ice and within the rescued man’s narrative a first person account of the monster’s short and unhappy life is given. So it is a story, within a story within a story, like a set of nesting dolls.

What I didn’t like was Victor Frankenstein’s constant “why me?” moaning and teeth-gnashing, all the while doing nothing to actively change the situation for which he and his hubris is directly responsible.  It isn’t just that he comes off as unsympathetic, but I found most his behavior unaccountable. I much preferred the monster’s narrative over Frankenstein’s and while the monster’s actions are equally despicable, I feel as if I understand where his motivations lie.  There are also some preeettty craaaazy leaps of faith the read must make in order for the story to hang together. For example, not just that Victor was able to make a man from left over body parts, but also things such as how the monster just happens to find three intact novels in the forest, he just happens to be able to eavesdrop on a Turkish girl learning French enabling him to learn French, etc.  This really strained my credulity.

Of course, what is fantastic about the book is the questions it asks about humankind in the here and now (like all great science fiction). Certainly one of the questions the book raises can be extrapolated to modern man and modern science:  just because we can do something (split an atom, genetically modify corn, clone sheep, etc.) should we?  And just how much responsibility do we have for our creations when they escape our control? But for me, most important and most poignant is the question of who is the real monster of the story.

I read this for the  2016 Back to the Classics Challenge hosted by Karen at Books and Chocolate for the Fantasy, Science Fiction, or Dystopian Classic category

The Pickwick Papers by Charles Dickens

While The Pickwick Papers is considered Charles Dickens’ first  novel, it actually began as a commission to write brief, satirical sketches about a private Gentlemen’s Club to accompany comic drawings for serial publication.  However, Dickens soon convinced his publishers that this should be the other way around and the drawings should be commissioned to accompany his ever mushrooming story regarding the adventures of the members of the Pickwick Club.  [There is also a rather sad side story of the original illustrator, Robert Seymour, committing suicide after the first two issues were less successful than anticipated and whispers of Dickens’ bullying ways contributing to his untimely demise.  Dickens addresses and defends these rumors in the preface to the 1867 edition which was included in the Modern Library Classics edition that I read which is pictured above.]

Since I did know the history of the book prior to reading it, I readily noticed as it went on that the chapters got longer, the plot more convoluted and the character arcs more apparent. Most importantly, the titular Pickwick starts off as object of ridicule but ends up (along with his faithful servant Sam Weller) being the hero of the book. The notion of satirizing private clubs is eventually dropped and replaced with social critiques of Victorian society which will later be more fully expressed in subsequent Dickens’ novels such as Bleak House and Little Dorrit. All this makes for a slightly rambley and inconsistent read and no doubt there were humorous bits I didn’t fully grasp since I am so far removed from the type of society Dickens was satirizing, but nevertheless I did really enjoy it.   

I don’t know if The Pickwick Papers is the best place to start with Dickens, but then again, maybe it is or rather maybe it doesn’t really matter? Martin Chuzzelwit will forever remain my favorite if only because it was the first book of Dickens that I read and made me fall in love. I admit the superiority of certain other works by Boz, but that title will always be on the top of my list for purely sentimental reasons!  And certainly The Pickwick Papers has everything that I love about Dickens, exaggerated characters, humorous pokes at human nature, sympathy for the poor, indignant anger at hypocrisy, etc.   So perhaps this first novel is absolutely the best place to start, because if you like this “sampler’, you will probably like the rest of Dickens as well!

This book was my read for the category of 19ths Century Classic in the 2016 Back to the Classic Challenge hosted by Karen on the blog Books and Chocolate.