If on a winter’s night a traveler: Final Review

This must have been the most deceitful book I have ever read in my life: If on a winter’s night a traveler. From the unique title I must have realized that this won’t be a regular thing. It’s an unfinished sentence; plus it was obviously written as an ordinary sentence, without capital letter on each word, as a title should usually be written. I have also read several reviews and a few analysis, and all of them promised an extraordinary reading experience from Signor Calvino. So, I encouraged myself to read it, together with several other bloggers. And what an adventure we have had for about two weeks!

Calvino addresses us in the form of his main (male) protagonist, The Reader. He uses second person point of view, which made it felt like he is talking to me, who was reading the book, personally. The Reader has just bought the new novel from Italo Calvino: If on a winter’s night a traveler. It’s about a man who arrives at train station in a “mission”. He is instructed by his ‘organization’ to meet someone (a connection) but somehow he missed it. I knew instantly that it would be a conspiracy-thriller. However, as the story reached the most exciting part, the Reader found that his copy was somehow mixed with the signatures of another novel. He went to the bookstore to complain, and got an ‘unspoiled’ copy as a replacement. However, when he opened the book, it turned out to be a different book. He was disappointed, but he was interested in this second book as well. So he read it anyway. But the same thing happened, the second book ended abruptly, and when he wanted to get the unspoiled copy, again, he got another novel.

The incident repeated for ten times, which forced our Reader to read ten different unfinished novels in the process of getting the complete one. During his quest for the right books, he met a Second Reader, a girl named Ludmilla, a passionate reader like himself. He got attracted to her, but just like his desire to read books with complete ending, his desire to possess Ludmilla’s heart for himself was blocked by some incidents; which—interestingly—was also connected to his book quest.

This is indeed an extraordinary book! Only a genius writer could create many plots which are entangled to each other like this. And if you read all of the novels—unfinished, though, they are—you’ll see that Calvino is a great story teller. Even when I knew that my reading would end abruptly in a few chapters, I still enjoyed the stories. My favorite was perhaps “Around an empty grave”—well, I always have a soft spot for the Indians, I think….

Our question at the end must be: what did Calvino wrote this complex book for? After having a thorough analysis I believe Calvino had two big messages to convey regarding the literary world. He criticized readers who read innocently, only for satisfying their desire, without trying to dig deeper into what the author tried to communicate. Calvino analogized it with the ‘void’—he mentioned this word many times—below the words in books. He also alerted us that in some point readers are not as free as they think; that there are the hands of the publishing industry who are controlling our reading behavior. We deal with it in different way. The Reader confronted them directly; while Ludmilla refused to join him because she didn’t want to know about any aspect of the book but the story itself. While Irnerio—Ludmilla’s friend—chose to stop reading at all. But in reality, none of them were actually completely free; not even Irnerio, who, instead of reading the books, produced handicraft using books as the media.

I believe there are more in this story than what I have been analyzed; one of them is feminism issue, which I sensed within the book (in Lotaria’s seminar, as well as dominant female in several of the novels). There are also the thoughts of erasing past consequences (zero moment), and restart from zero. What was it? I don’t think I would ever find out the answer, as this book, for me, is not the kind that I would like to reread someday. No, this is a unique book, and an extraordinary reading, but once is surely enough!

Three and a half stars for Signor Calvino!

~~~~~~~~~~~

I read e-book from BookFi dot org

This book is counted as:

73^rd book for The Classics Club Project

72nd book for 1001 Books You Must Read Before YouDie

The Last of the Mohicans

Thanks to Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans, I learned for the first time in my life, the French-Indian war which took place in North America in 18^th century. In this war, British America (colony of Great Britain) and New France (colony of France) fought for trades and colonies along the American frontiers. As New France armies were outnumbered, they sought helps from the native Indian tribes.

General Munro and his armies were in Fort William Henry, when Cora and Alice—Munro’s daughters—travelled there in great danger to meet their father. They were escorted by Major Duncan Heyward, a respectable leader in the Royal Army, who was also falling in love with young Alice. As there was a risk of being ambushed by native Indians, or by the French armies who were on the way to take William Henry Fort from Munro, they recruited an Indian guide, Magua—from Huron tribe. On the way they met a white scout, Hawk-Eye, with his Indian companions Chingachgook and his son Uncas, the only survival of once great Mohican tribe. They warned Heyward that a Huron is not trustworthy, and Magua will mislead them. Magua escaped, so then Hawkeye and the Mohicans escorted Heyward and the two ladies, accompanied also by a psalm-singer called David Gamut.

After that, Cooper took us for an exciting adventure through the wild forest, meeting the Indian natives, fought them, and even visited their encampment. All of these, they went through in great danger. Many times Hawkeye and the Mohicans saved them from being scalped, and they even rescued their British friends when the Hurons captured them. Magua wanted to take revenge to Munro by forcing Cora to be his wife. Later on when Munro was forced to surrender the fort, and the armies were on the leave, the Hurons massacred many of them. In the chaos, Magua captured Cora for the second time, together with Alice and David. Now Munro, Heyward, Hawk-Eye, Chingachgook, and Uncas must race against time to rescue them. In the end, it would be a battle between the Delawares (from where the Mohicans came from) and Huron tribe.

The Last of the Mohicans is about the relationship between the whites and the natives, as well as between the native tribes themselves. If we traced down the history—and it was mentioned in the book—the main cause of it all is white people’s colonialism and their bad influences over the natives. Hawk-Eye told Heyward that the Delaware tribes (contained of six nations) were brothers on the beginning, until the Dutch traders landed on 1609, and introduced them to alcoholic drinks. The ‘poison’ brought to separation and disunity. And, like all colonialism and greediness of the conquerors, the natives who owned the land were expelled from their territory, to make place for the colonialists. Later on (not in this novel, though), the American even deliberately brought the Indians into destruction by their continual genocides act (American Indian Holocaust).

However, among the hatred and battles, sweet relationship could spring of the natives and the whites. The bond between Hawk-Eye and both Chingachgook and Uncas was very close; even closer, perhaps, than blood brothers. Although implicitly, we can also see that Uncas and Cora were attracted to each other. *spoiler alert* Interestingly, though, Cooper killed both youth before they even expressed their love to each other. Maybe Cooper just thought that their love was too impossible? *spoiler end*

I loved this book, although Cooper is rather spendthrift with words—like Mark Twain said (Twain re-write The Last of the Mohicans, and found that Cooper has ‘used 100 extra and unnecessary words in the original version’). I enjoyed the fast-paced adventure, the thrill of the Indian’s whoop which precede battles, and the funny moments when Hawk-Eye disguised as bear; but especially I loved to follow the calm and dignified attitude of Uncas and his father in any condition.

I am always sad everytime I read about Indian vs white people; because it reminds me how evil and egoist men are towards their brothers. How ironical it is, that they who profess to be Christian, could act so very unchristian, while the natives are much Christian than them. This book also reminds me that colonialism will always exist—in different shape maybe—but it will always be there, as long as the stronger keep oppressing the weaker; just like what Tamenund said in the ending: “The palefaces are masters of the earth, and the time of the Red Men has not yet come again.”

Five stars for The Last of the Mohicans!

~~~~~~~~~~

I read the Penguin Popular Classics paperback edition

This book is counted as:

4^th book for Back To The Classics 2014 (A Wartime Classic)

^70th book for 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

2^nd book for Historical Fiction Challenge (for 2014)

71^st book for The Classics Club Project

Nana

Now 15 years old, Nana Coupeau, Gervaise and Coupeau’s daughter, first appeared in L’Assommoir as a child. Brought up on the street, Nana started her career as a tart, or courtesan, or whatever you might call for prostitutes. However that day, three years before Franco-Prussian War, Nana would began her new step as an actress in the Théâtre des Variétés. Her debut has created a big fuss all over Paris, although—as the manager stated—she had neither good voice nor good acting. The opera was very successful, and Nana suddenly became a famous tart in Paris. Many gentlemen fell for her; there was a count who came from very conservative family; another was a girlish young man; while the others ranged from Jewish banker to rich hedonist young men of all Paris. They were all bent under Nana’s sexual charm; risking everything—money, family, honor—to be with her. In three years Nana has been ruining these men’s lives, but the one who suffered most was Count Muffat.

In Nana, Zola criticized the moral corruption which infected France in the Second Empire. Actually, reading Nana right after The Kill was quite intriguing, because I felt a close similarity in both novels—the moral lose in the shape of excessive sexual and pleasure appetites. In Nana herself, we saw that her alcoholic parents and the slump environment affected her sexual behavior and gave her insatiable passion for pleasure.

We also learned from Nana how difficult for people who lived in the gutter of Paris to avoid their return to the same gutter, no matter what they do. In fact, Nana was once one of the richest tarts in Paris, while rich and influential men provided any luxury she asked for. However, no matter how much she possessed, she would spend much more. And although she longed to be regarded as a lady, she still could not resist of taking men from street to sleep with her, from time to time.

It is also interesting to see how women in the second half of 19^th century struggled to have more influence in the midst of patriarchal world. At that era, women didn't have access to both education and career, but they learned that they had another power which only women had: sexual charm, and it was so powerful that they could overpower the men and rule the country or society. Here the moral loose was not only in the lower level of society (the workers), but also in the aristocracy, both courtesans and respectable ladies gripped their claws in the men’s lives and ruin them. 

There were a lot of other examples in Nana, that it is so difficult to break the habitual chain we inherited from our families and environment. Zola often made his characters to be helpless victims, as if they had neither any will power nor hope to change themselves. As if, we, human being, are merely product of nature, and our future always depends on evolution process. I have read seven books from Zola, and in most of them, I always thought, why they (the central characters) didn’t fight? Why did they surrender to their weaknesses? It is all because Zola is a naturalist, and in this Les Rougon-Macquart series he emphasized how hereditary weakness and corrupted society were powerful enough to drag a person, helplessly, down to the gutter. He did not intend to preach us on morality or religion; he just wanted to present how the corruption happened.

Out of his method and principle, Zola is no doubt great in story-telling, and he never fails to amaze me. Nana won’t perhaps be one of my favorites, but the story is entertaining and flows nicely with (as usual) a theatrical ending. Four stars for Nana!

~~~~~~~

I read the Oxford World Classics paperback edition

This book is counted as:

 2^nd book for Zoladdiction 2014

3^rd book for Baca Bareng BBI April theme (WomanLit)

2^nd book for Back To The Classics 2014 (A 19th Century Classic)

67^th book for 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

69^th book for The Classics Club Project

Don Quixote: Final Review

I have a mixed feeling about Don Quixote. On the one hand I quite enjoyed Cervantes’ wit and beautiful prose, but on the other I disliked the absurdities. I just could not force myself to believe there are people so contradictory like Don Quixote and Sancho Pança, who at a time were so wise, but at others so stupid. I know that Cervantes made it absurd on purpose, but that’s why I could never really like it.

Alonso Quixada was a gentleman who lived quietly in La Mancha. He was obsessed by books of chivalry in his personal library. The idea of knight-errantry poisoned his mind, that one day, in his thoroughly frenzied mind, he felt a strong impulse to become a knight and sought adventures in order to relieve the weak and oppressed from their sorrows. He followed every rule he had read from his books, and was suddenly transformed into a Don Quixote de la Mancha. He recruited a country farmer called Sancho Pança as his squire, and took a peasant woman to be his adored-lady—just because a knight in books used to have a squire, and a lady to whom he dedicated all his deeds. Mounting on his skinny horse—which he fancied as a stout one—he left La Mancha to seek adventures.

And indeed, a lot of adventures he got along the way. However, far from helping people, Don Quixote often ended up bringing trouble to others. It’s because he himself had fancied that those people were in trouble and needing his help—while in reality they didn’t. In the urge of having problems to solve, Don Quixote used to create them in his fantasies. In these fantasies, either people, or animals, or even things might become his worst enemies. One of his, probably, most memorable (and funniest) adventure is when he attacked some windmills which he imagined as giants! But you might wonder, if the adventures were mere fantasies, how did he react when they were failed? When things went wrong, Don Quixote blamed it on enchantment or works of a magician.

If he was so deluded, why didn’t his squire or others lead him to the truth? Sancho was quite a man of sense, but he was also deluded by illusion of power. He was so sure that one day Don Quixote would be a King, and would grant him island to govern. But other than that, Sancho was an amiable man. And maybe, besides his childish trust to his master, he was the most natural character of others, and has become my most favorite character in this book.

Now, along his adventures, Don Quixote met so many people. Interestingly, none of them seemed really appreciate Don Quixote’s main aim by entering knight-errantry profession, which was to help others. This was a noble dream, but people failed to see it as it was, and focused instead on the crazy ways he tried to achieve it. The curate, the barber, and the bachelor tried hard to bring him home and cure him. In their eyes, Don Quixote was a poor deluded old man who only humiliated himself by his knight-errantry. The Duke and Duchess were much worse; they put (too) much effort to create adventures for Don Quixote just to amuse themselves—it’s bullying, and I hate them for it! There were still many other characters, some were kind to Don Quixote and Sancho, but some were quite rude. But all of them saw the same thing from our knight: a mad man; either they pitied him or were annoyed by him.

So, that is how Cervantes saw the world in his era. The nobility and moral value had been decaying, and people only saw what appeared on the surface. The biggest irony in this story is how people regarded Don Quixote as a deluded man, while in fact it was they who were deluded. Strange and unreasonable as he was, Don Quixote was the only one who still strongly believed in nobility and the need of helping others; while the others—normal as they believed they were—could only see a strange old man, and failed to see his much deeper and important quality as a human being.

Only after I finished this book, did I see why Don Quixote has been a very important work in our literary world. Cervantes is indeed great in conveying his ideas through this entertaining satirical romance, which became the first complete novel ever published. Don Quixote is actually divided into two parts. In the first one Cervantes wrote it as if he presented us a history of a certain knight, written by a Moor called Benengali. Interestingly, in the second part, Cervantes took a more active role, by putting another author who has been writing the sequel of Don Quixote without his permission, and made Don Quixote met people who have read the false history of him. The meta-story style could also be found in part one; actually one of them: “The Impertinent Curiosity” is so engaging I even think I love it better than the original story! And this is very interesting, considering it was written some four centuries ago.

All in all, I realized that Don Quixote is a special and genius piece of literature, but somehow, I could not like it as I thought I would. I got bored many times, and used to skip few pages, before continuing. Maybe, if Cervantes didn’t put too many adventures, I would like it more. But in the end, three and a half stars are the best I could give for Don Quixote, one memorable story but too tedious for my liking.

~~~~~~~~

I read Wordsworth Classics paperback

This book is counted as:

2^nd book for 2014 TBR Pile Challenge

1^st book for Back to the Classics 2014

67^th book for The Classics Club Project

16^th book for WEM Self-Project

 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

Aesop’s Fables

Aesop is a slave and story-teller who was believed to live in ancient Greece around 620 to 560 BC. He collected many tales from diverse origins, and from generations to generations, Aesop’s tales had been retold and reinterpreted in many media. The first printed version of Aesop's Fables in English was published on March 26, 1484, by William Caxton [source: wiki]. Fables were advocated by John Locke to be targeted to children only on 1693, while previously they were targeted to adult only.

When I first opened the book (I read Wordsworth Classics’ edition), I was amazed by the table of contents. I had no idea that there were so many fables! There were probably more than 200 titles. The fables are usually very short; one page could contain two to three fables, with illustrations every few or more pages. And browsing all the titles (and they are stretched to eleven pages alone!), I can see that the ‘characters’ are quite varied; but the lion, fox, and wolf appear most often.

Plunging into the fables, I quickly realized that most of them have similar themes, and after around 40% I have got bored already. It felt like reading a same thing over and over again, with only the characters or the circumstances were changed. And so, I must pick another book as a change to be read along Aesop’s Fables. In the end I felt more exhausted than entertained by the fables, but realizing that I am reading some works which have been inherited for generations, I could appreciate it more.

There are few gems, anyway, from the 200+ tales, which I found inspiring and encouraging. Especially because some of the stories are equipped with the moral value as quotes. Some of my favorites are:

The Slave & the Lion – A slave run away from his master and finds a cave where a wounded lion stays. The slave takes care and saves the lion’s life, and they become best friends. Later on the master finds what the slave has done; and he is to be thrown to beasts as punishment. You could guess, I think, which beast would find the slave, and how the tale ends. I am always touched by the friendship between men and animals, and that’s why this tale becomes one of my favorites.

The Apes & the Two Travelers – Two travelers, one is a liar, while the other is an honest person, are treated by the King of Apes. The King is proud of his noble monarch and asks the travelers their opinion. The liar praises the apes and gets reward. The honest one, who feels that his honesty would get him more rewards that the liar, tells the truth, that he thinks they are merely apes. Again, you must have guessed the outcome. There is a difference between telling truth for the sake of the truth, or out of greediness. Anyway, virtue only comes from goodwill.

The Eagle & His Captor – A man catches an eagle then clips his wings before he sells him. The buyer takes the eagle home and lets his wings grow. When he is recovered, the eagle catches a hare and presents it to his benefactor. Now a fox tells him that he should have presented the hare to his first captor rather than his benefactor, so the captor will be his friend, and won’t clip his wings again if he catches him the second time. This is something we never, or rarely, consider. Good advice, indeed. And this time comes from a fox! :)

Three and a half stars for Aesop’s Fables.

~~~~~~~~~

I read the Wordsworth Classics paperback edition

This book is counted as:

January theme of Baca Bareng #BBI: Fable

65^th book for The Classics Club Project

Notes From Underground

Although it is a very short book, Notes From Underground is far from light reading. I have started it last year, but had to stop at first chapter as I did not get what it is about. This year my friend enticed me to read it together, as it should be a good book. I took her challenge, and braced myself to read from the beginning, to get through the point where I have stuck last year, and to keep on reading—whether I understand it or not—as I believe I will get on it eventually after some chapters. Although I could not say I like it after finishing the book, I still feel grateful that I have at least tried it. It is my first encounter with Dostoyevsky anyway, and although I didn’t enjoy Notes From Underground, I like the way he writes, and would certainly read his other novels (I have Crime and Punishment in my TBR pile already).

Notes From Underground is told from first person point of view, and written as a kind of diary of the male narrator (I will call him ‘the narrator’). The narrator is a man of forties, lives in a wretched house which he calls the underground. He is a spiteful man, and from the beginning he has been bursting spiteful expressions about everything. He does not hate someone or something in particular, but he hates the world he is living. Odd as it was, I kept reading, and only after reaching the middle part, that I began to have a clearer image about this narrator.

He feels different from others because he is more intelligent and more superior to others. I think it is because he put himself above others, that others see him strange, anti social, and expel him for good. He despises the way they live, yet he yearns to be part of them; there is a paradox and self-denying here! The narrator often pictures it as tooth-ache; you hate the pain, yet you enjoy people’s attention; you want the ache stop, yet you regret it when it stops because you’ll lose people’s attention when you are recovered.

At first I thought this book is about a political criticism, but apparently it is more psychological (and philosophical?). I think it criticizes how men always want to be independent—which he calls freedom—while in reality, he also likes to be controlled; to be in orderliness. They despise law, but at certain point they demand to be regulated by it. Men are too tied to rules and are afraid to be free. They see people who don’t live by the same rule as weird. This is what the narrator feels; just because he doesn’t agree with others’ way of life, they see him as a fly. He longs to be free but couldn’t, and that makes him a despiteful man.

The narrator knows he is at an equal level with his friends but he always resentfully surrenders to their power. He does once an experiment by not yielding when passing a gentleman, shoulder to shoulder on the street; it is very difficult for him because in the end he always involuntarily yields. The narrator also talks much about consciousness. Here are several interesting quotes that makes you think more about human and society.

"To be too conscious is an illness.”

“Man has preferred to act as he chose and not in the least as his reason and advantage dictated.”

“What man wants is simply independent choice, whatever that independence may cost and wherever it may lead.”

“Man lives to make roads and to create, but why has he such a passionate love for destruction and chaos also?”

“He loves the process of attaining, but does not quite like to have attained.”

“Through civilization mankind becomes softer.” ~ Buckle

“You boast of consciousness, but you are not sure of your ground, for though your mind works, yet your heart is darkened and corrupt, and you cannot have a full, genuine consciousness without a pure heart.”

Can you guess what all these are about? I have a vague idea, but still could not grab the whole idea. I might not reread this book, but I would certainly love to read more from Dostoyevsky.

Three stars for Notes From Underground.

~~~~~~~~

*I read ebook from Feedbooks dot com*

*This book is counted as:*

63^rd book for The Classics Club Project

Song of Solomon: Final Review

Tony Morrison really likes to open a novel in an oddly way; as in Beloved, so is in Song of Solomon. It is opened with a suicide letter from an insurance agent, who announced that he will fly from the hospital top on certain date and hour. ‘Why?’ I instantly asked myself. And my question remained unanswered through almost the whole story. The insurance agent turns out not to be the main character either. He only serves as a symbol. The center of the story is about Macon ‘Milkman’ Dead and his people.

It was on the day of the insurance agent’s suicide, that Milkman was born. He was born in the richest black family in the town; his father was in property business, while his mother was a daughter of a respectable doctor. While he was growing up, little by little the dark secrets of the family were revealed. The ugly truths disturbed Milkman; he felt that he did not have freedom. His father—who wanted to kill him before he was born—now wanted him to help him in business. His mother has used him as a boy to amuse herself. Hagar wanted to have his life because she could not get his love. Even his name he got from someone else’s faults. He felt that everything is a mess, no one lived normally within his family and his people. He was weary of all that and wanted to leave everything behind but had no power to do that as he did not have money.

While Milkman was searching the value of his life, Guitar—his best friend since childhood—was getting weird. He became too serious and was obsessed with racial issues. Milkman found out later that he has joined a society called Seven Days, whose aim was to kill white people as many as they have killed the blacks. Guitar believed that by holding up the population of the whites, they would have less power to oppress the blacks. So, both Milkman and Guitar were finding their own way to escape the crushed world they were now living.

Since Milkman has been living quite comfortably, he did not get as desperate as Guitar. His father asked him to trace the sack of gold of his, which he suspected has been stolen by his sister Pilate. This mission finally led Milkman not to the gold, but to the true history of his ancestors. From a children’s song he learned the story of Solomon, his great grandfather, a great Negro who was praised by his people because he managed to ‘fly’. And so Milkman was inspired by Solomon; if his great grandfather could ‘fly’, so could he.

It was only when I was in the last chapter, that I realized what Morrison has been fussing about the ‘fly’. First the fly of the insurance agent in the opening, then Solomon’s fly. And people here don’t feel it strange that a human can fly; instead, they praised Solomon for succeeding in flying, although by doing that he ought to leave his wife grieving. Milkman too was overjoyed of his great grandfather’s achievement. And so I began to think that the ‘fly’ here might means the efforts to leave their present depressing situation to a brighter future. Morrison encourages us that to keep hoping and thinking positively, that someday you might see the chance to fly away.

This is my second Toni Morrison, and I still enjoyed it. Unlike Beloved that is quite shocking, Song of Solomon feels like reading an adventure novel. The plot flows nicely, although Morrison keeps starting chapters from the middle of an event, and while we are asking what it is all about, she throws the clues here and there, until at one point the whole event is revealed.

Four stars for Song of Solomon, and I think I might read Morrison other novels in the future.

~~~~~~~~

*I read Signet edition*

*This book is counted as:*

22^nd book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge 2013

11^th book for Back To The Classics 2013

62^nd book for The Classics Club Project

David Copperfield

As soon as I read the last line, and closed the book for good, I could only think…how emotional David Copperfield is; it’s much more intense than any other books I have read so far by Dickens. Then I realized, David Copperfield is Dickens’ autobiographical novel, and so he must have written it deep from his heart. Things that might have been suppressed during his life, he poured down into this book. And so, I felt like Dickens himself was speaking to me; telling his unfortunate childhood, and how he became the man he was when he wrote this book. It became very personal and compassionate reading for me; and David Copperfield now becomes one of my favorites, and the most memorable from Dickens.

The book tells about the life of David Copperfield, from his unfortunate childhood—being an orphan; tormented at home by his wicked stepfather Mr. Murdstone; witnessing injustice and cruel treatment at school, his difficult runaway—to being in his aunt Betsey Trotwood’s custody, his apprenticeship time, until he came of age, marrying the girl he adored, and experienced the sweetness and bitterness of life. And during those times, David Copperfield—later on was also called Trotwood Copperfield by his aunt—met many memorable characters—some loved him, some despised him, some did him good, but some did him worse. Through them all, David (Trotwood) Copperfield strove to build his own character and to have a better life, just as Charles Dickens emerged as one of the greatest novelists of all time.

Strangely, unlike any other main protagonists in Dickens’ novel, I didn’t find Copperfield as distinguished as I expected. Yes, he is kind, friendly, helpful, persevering in hard times and has ‘undiciplined heart’—as Dickens put it—but other than that, he seems to be too plain; like there are no specific or unique personalities that distinguishes him from others. I even like Tommy Traddles more than Copperfield; he is more ‘humane’ than Copperfield here. And of course, I like Agnes Wickfield and Betsey Trotwood—who wouldn’t love to have an aunt like that?... :)

Mr. Micawber would have one of my favorites if not for his distressing law-styled letters—which gave me enough headaches to read. Oh, Mr. Pegotty is also my favorite, this is a genuine humble man with abundance of love in his heart; bless him for his sacrifices and forgiveness for Little Em’ly! Then there is the notorious Uriah Heep with his ‘umbleness’. I felt from the beginning that Uriah’s ‘umbleness’ was fake; and I always believe that people with that exaggerated humility must have been spiteful inside.

The best part of this novel is when young Copperfield must live alone by himself, beginning actually after her mother remarried. That was the starting point of his miseries, as young as he was then—10 years?—he must take care of his own and fed himself. As Dickens wrote it from his own experience, it becomes so intense. I could sympathize with Copperfield very much; and I often felt that I was reading Dickens’ own diary. I could also feel how his wound must have been re-opened while he was retelling those dark histories of his. I could only hope that Dickens’ emotional wounds would be relieved, at least a bit, after telling it to us then. And don’t forget about the sea storm Dickens wrote so lively, almost felt like reading a semi-thriller.

Knowing that this book is Dickens’ half fictionalized memoir, I can only wonder which one of the characters here that represent the true figures in Dickens’ life. Does, for instance, Dora represent Maria Beadnell, his first lover? At least I read about it in Wikipedia. But her death in so young of age, doesn’t it represent Mary—Dickens’ sister in law—to whom he became very attached—who died of an illness on her 17 years of age, and of whom—they say—Dickens has never recovered from his grief? And what about Agnes Wickfield? Could she be the representation of Ellen Ternan, whom was believed to be Dickens’ last lover? Or did he write DC before he met Tarnen? I really need to consult my Dickens’ biography again!

In short—as Mr. Micawber usually concluded his speeches :D—David Copperfield is one of the most memorable from Dickens, and I am grateful I have chance to read it. It was so enjoyable, and I think it is one book that I would love to reread from time to time, at least the one from Dickens.

Five stars for David Copperfield.

~~~~~~~

*I read Wordsworth Classics edition*

*This book is counted as:*

21^st book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge 2013

9^th book for Read Big! Reading Challenge

14^th book for 2013 TBR Pile Challenge

61^st book for The Classics Club Project

1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

A Farewell To Arms

During First World War Ernest Hemingway has served as ambulance driver for Italian Army. From this experience, Hemingway created a Frederic Henry—the main character of this book—an American Lieutenant who serve in Ambulance corps of Italian Army during First World War, just like him.

The story begins when Frederic was serving on the Italian Front, the battle between the armies of Austria and German against Italy, between 1915 - 1918. His roommate introduced him to Catherine, a Scottish (or English?) nurse served in the same war. One day a mortar shell fell in a ditch where the ambulance drivers were having breakfast. Frederic wounded on his knee, brought to a hospital, where Catherine also joined him, and they fell in love. After their vacation in Milan, Catherine was pregnant, and the couple pretended they were husband and wife (although they never really married). After recovering, Frederic must return to the front. However when Italy was on retreat, Frederic was captured, but managed to get away; and disgusting at the war, decided to desert. Catherine accompanied him in desertion; they went to Switzerland, where she would give birth to the baby.

To be honest, I have expected more about war than the romance from this book. A Farewell To Arms is said to be the bleakest book from Hemingway, maybe it is so, but I don’t feel that way. Anyway, I can’t expect cheerfulness in a war story, can I? However, what annoyed me most is how Frederic and Catherine took their lives for granted. I think it’s not right to rely one’s life only on love; as long as the couple loves each other, everything will be OK. Maybe Hemingway wanted to show us how war makes us depressed and hopeless. After witnessing his comrades died for nothing, it’s natural for Frederic to become skeptical. Still, it didn’t give him rights to deprive life from others. After finding that he loved Catherine, he should have married her and so, provided her and their coming baby with a decent and respectable life.

*spoiler alert* I don’t want to be a severe judge, but I believe that what we did in the past—good or bad—would somehow come back to us, either now or in the future. Seeing Frederic and Catherine, with how they only regarded life as a series of enjoyable moments, I was not surprised with the tragedy they had in the end. It’s clear that Frederic and Catherine were not ready to be parents from the beginning—Frederic wasn’t even touched by his newborn baby(?). And approaching the end, I knew that something terrible must have awaited me, because it’s impossible to have such comforts without suffering something. And the title also speaks about a farewell, doesn’t it? *spoiler end*

Apart from the story, Hemingway’s writing is quite unique. This is the second time I read a stream-of-consciousness novel, and I must say Hemingway’s is much better than Woolf’s—which I have failed with. Maybe it is the stream-of-consciousness, or maybe it’s the lack of moral depth, that made this book felt flat and sometimes boring. After finishing it, I could only ask Hemingway: So, what did you want to say to me? That war is cruel? That life is mortal? (I don’t know about Hemingway, but both Frederic and Catherine here did not have any religion). In short, I felt a hollowness or shallowness from this book, and the only consolation I had is the beautiful way Hemingway wrote about nature, which I also caught in The Old Man and the Sea (my only favorite from him so far).

Three and a half stars for A Farewell To Arms.

~~~~~~~~

I read Vintage Classics paperback edition

*This book is counted as:*

4^th book for Baca Bareng BBI 2013: (August) – Books on War

51^st book for The Classics Club Project

1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

War and Peace

 “History is the life of nations and of humanity.”

Leo Tolstoy dedicated War and Peace—a historical fiction which he insisted for not being a novel—to convey his ideas about history and war, which is different with what historians at that time believed. Tolstoy crafted his ideas through the lives of five aristocratic families during the French invasion of Russia by Napoleon on the early 19^th century. He took us to witness how humanity was built in battle field as well as in soirees and parties Moscow and Petersburg.

The story begins in 1805 when Russia—under the reign of Tsar Alexander I—is expecting war with French.  Then I began to know the proud and resolute Prince Andrew (Andrei) Bolkonski, and his timid and religious sister Princess Mary Bolkonskaya; the temperamental and impetuous Count Nicholas (Nikolai) Rostov, and his impulsive, restless sister, the young countess Natalya (Natasha) Rostova. There are also the very rich, absent-minded Count Pierre (Peter) Bezukhov, and the poor but ambitious Boris Drubetskoy. Throughout the book, their fates (together with so many other characters’) would be entangled one another during the turbulence era of the war. While the war is progressing—Tolstoy portrayed it very vividly as if he is reporting the battle live from the battle field—so are the characters, developing along with their sorrows and happiness, love and hatred.

My most favorite character from the beginning is Prince Andrew. He’s a man who knows what he is doing, and he’s always self-confident. *spoiler alert* Naturally, when he is falling in love with Natasha, I began to hope that the relationship would end up in a happy marriage. Well, I don’t quite like the impulsive Natasha, who always thinks about herself, but I just want Andrew to be happy. So, you can imagine how angry I was with Natasha when she decided to elope with Anatole. Seriously, how could she ever think about it at all?? OK, I understand how she must have felt, in her youth, to be separated with her fiancée for one year, to be left idle in the confinement of home, war, and the engagement bond, without anything to busy her restless mind. And she was still naïve when the sexy Anatole used his irresistible charm to her. By the way, Helene and Anatole are just the same: brainless, immoral, but charming. And people often shamefully take only the charm side, but fail to see deeper than that. And they absurdly think Helene is very clever when she is actually very stupid. Oh, people!

Sorry, back to Natasha... :) I understand how she could be attracted to Anatole. But deciding to elope with him, while she knows that it is disgraceful (or, does she really realize it?), how could she agree with the idea?  I can never understand. Tempting to do one thing is normal, but deciding it after consideration? And like Princess Mary, I was a bit hurt knowing that Natasha could fall in love with Pierre just a few weeks after Andrew’s death. Did she really love Andrew, then? Not as deep as how Andrew loved her, I think… *spoiler end*

Still about Andrew, I like it most when he is philosophizing with Pierre—who becomes his best friend. Their debates are always deep in meaning, and from them I learned a lot about life and war. I believe Andrew represents Tolstoy’s own way of seeing life and war (especially war). In one of his deep conversations with Pierre Tolstoy points out that what really moves a war into its nature is not the genius strategies or the great commanders, but the army who really involve in the battle. In it, Tolstoy wants to say that war is actually a movement of humanity (until now I still don’t know what the ‘peace’ in War and Peace stands for, do you?).

There is a gap between people who (think they) control the battle course, and people who fight in the battle. The minority of generals, commanders, etc. give commands but do not involve in the battle; while the majority of the army, who must execute the commands, really fight the battle. When historians write about a particular battle, they would only read the written plans, strategies, reports from the generals and commanders, and from them draw a conclusion that this general or that commander is genius because he can create such tactics. However, in reality, the commands are rarely be executed by the army in the battle field. Just imagine, when you are in a battle, between life and death, would you really think about your boss or even your nation? Of course not, you would first think of your own life, of surviving. It’s natural, because human’s instinct is to survive.

In the chaos of a battle, generals and commanders act and give instructions based on reports, while the army act based on their instinct. When one report being delivered to the commander, it would be considered, discussed, decided, replied, then sent back to the army. But meanwhile, the course of the battle might have changed completely, and so the instruction is not up to date anymore. In short, it is very difficult to pick one hero (or culprit) of a success or a failure in war, because there are so many circumstances that intervene the course of a war. In the end, we must realize that war is moved my humanity, not by a genius mind.

The same could be applied to any other histories. There are no coincident or magnanimity in wars or other events, but only circumstances and humanity. That’s what Tolstoy had wanted to speak through this book. Unfortunately, he took pains to explain it in the second epilogue of twelve chapters! That makes the ending feels so anti-climax, whereas he actually had slipped this philosophy of war and history throughout the story. It goes well because, while he is explaining his opinion, the readers are provided with the example in the story. So, without any further essay, we have understood what he conveys very well. Closing it on the first epilogue would be much better than stretching the epilogue twelve more chapters full of repeating frowning-explanations!

For all that, I attached four and a half stars for War and Peace. I love Tolstoy writing and usage of so beautiful metaphors, but I’m disappointed in the closing. For me closing passage or lines are what echoes from the book long after I finish it. While I might have forgotten the opening, the closing is what I bring back with me to reality.

~~~~~~~~

I read Wordsworth Classics paperback edition

*This book is counted as:*

6^th book for Read Big! Reading Challenge

6^th book for Back To The Classics 2013

50^th book for The Classics Club Project

5th book for Historical Fiction Challenge

1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

The Mill on The Floss

George Eliot is the third Victorian female author whose novel I’ve ever read. The first is Louisa May Alcott (which I have failed), then Anna Sewell. And I have to confess sadly that Sewell is the only one so far I could get on very well; meaning that The Mill on The Floss did not quite impressed me like I have expected. I can blame it on Zola, for I confessed that I haven’t completely moved on from La Bête Humaine before I took The Mill, but I think it’s just me.

The Mill on the Floss is about the Tullivers who owned Dorlcote Mill on the bank of Floss River. There Tom and Maggie Tulliver had a happy childhood and formed an intimate bond as brother and sister. Until one day the Tullivers lost their fortune, land and mill from bankruptcy. Tom must drop out his education and were forced to finance the family on very early age, while the whole family was suffering from humiliation. Meanwhile Maggie met Philip Wakem, the son of Tullivers’ enemy, a hunchback and deformed young man who fell in love with Maggie. Inspired by the childhood sentimental friendship and out of pity, Maggie met Philip secretly.

Years later Tom successfully restored the family honor by paying the debt. While Philip was once again trying to renew his approach to Maggie, the girl found herself attracted to Stephen—her cousin’s fiancée—who returned her feeling. Now Maggie was in a dilemma between love and conscience. Which one should she accept: the man she didn’t love but she couldn’t hurt the heart; or the man she’s in love with, who belonged to her beloved cousin?

Actually this book is rather flat to me especially in the early pages, which I often skipped whenever the story switched to the nonsense Gleggs or Pullets. And although the ending is unexpected—but quite cliché—Eliot has failed to grab me deep into the story.

From the main characters, I did not find any favorite, Maggie is the least one. I felt there was a contradiction in her personality. In a way she was a smart girl with self-esteem, and person like this usually acts more from logic than from emotion. At first I imagined Maggie would grow up like Isabel Archer in The Portrait of A Lady; but the more I follow her story, the more I’m astonished to find Maggie turned to be sentimental and always in confused state. She kept changing her decision and could not be firm with what she has decided.

I think the main youngsters in this story were all selfish in their own ways—yes, even Maggie. Tom was the ‘best of the bad’ for me, for although he was selfish and narrow minded, he has been successful in fulfilling his father’s will. I can’t blame him too much because he had grown up with the fixed idea which his father, the families and the society have planted on him that family honor is number one. Tom has carried a burden too heavy for him; and in that situation, there’s no place for any imagination, and that’s why he kept carrying a straight purpose in life; because he saw that’s the only way he could survive.

Stephen Guest was a pure egoist man. He was born and grown up as the son of a rich and honorable family; he always got what he needed. I think there were a lot of examples of his kind. Philip Wakem was the most annoying one for me. I know that it’s hard to live as a half-crippled man, but that didn’t give him the right to force others to make him happier or make his life easier. It was selfishness too; and I always dislike people who pity himself and make his weakness as an excuse. Life is hard for everyone, but our Creator gives us the mean to survive. To be different with others doesn’t mean we are weaker than them. Wake up Wakem! Don’t just drown yourself in romantic love, there’re many other things in life you can pursue!

And last but not least there is Maggie, the so called ‘heroine’. Maggie was a person who always longed for love, she needed to be treated passionately and be forgiven from her faults, but she never tried quite hard to repentant. Maybe it’s because she was careless and lived in her own dreams; but perhaps it’s because she was indifferent; she lived only for herself. Maggie chose to be with Philip because she didn’t want to hurt Philip and Lucy. That’s ridiculous because with that, she would hurt Stephen AND Philip, because she never loved him. Nonetheless, Maggie kept her decision, because marrying Philip would be a martyrdom kind of act of her love. Selfishness… or narrow-mindedness?

With The Mill on The Floss, Eliot would like to criticize people prejudices; and particularly prejudices which made women suffered. Maggie, with her different way of thinking than the society, have successively made infamous decisions which invited unfair prejudices from the society. Both Maggie and Stephen would be cheating to their supposed partners; but while people forgave Stephen, they judged Maggie severely. This only reflect where women’s position in the society was when Eliot lived—in 19^th century—as this novel was also a semi-autobiographical story of Mary Anne Evans, the real name of George Eliot.

Three stars for The Mill on the Floss.

~~~~~~

I read the Penguin English Library paperback version

This book is counted for:

Baca Bareng BBI 2013 (April – book about woman/written by a woman)

3^rd book for Read Big! Reading Challenge

5^th book for New Authors Reading Challenge 2013

42^nd book for The Classics Club

1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

La Bête Humaine

In all human beings there is always the beast within. That’s what Zola wanted to remind us in La Bête Humaine (= the human beast). There’s always the animal side in us which lay side by side with the human conscience deep in our soul. In some people, it might perhaps never been unleashed, and so they would die honorably after living a decent life. However in most of others, this human beast could anytime leap out of them uncontrollably. The interesting question is, why some people can control it, while others can’t? Moreover, could it ever be controlled? And Zola took us to analyze these in this psychological thriller novel.

Jacques Lantier (son of Gervaise and Auguste Lantier—L’Assommoir; brother of Étienne—Germinal and Claude—The Masterpiece) is the main “human beast” in this story. He was an engine-driver of a French railway company; and was a handsome, educated and skilful worker indeed. From the first time Jacques had noticed that in time to time a kind of uncontrollable passion to kill a female would attack him; and when the seizure came, the passion would control his entire mind and body. For the time being he lived a healthy life as there was no female in his life, other than ‘La Lison’, his locomotive engine. But one day when he was visiting his aunt, Jacques was seduced by his cousin Flore who had been falling in love with him for a long time. Then and there the seizure came, and in his runaway of the scene, Jacques witnessed a man cutting another man’s throat in a fast-running train. As a witness in the murder case, Jacques came to the acquaintances of the murderers, Roubaud and his beautiful wife Séverine. When Jacques started to have passionate love towards Séverine, the beast was awaken there within the recess of his soul, waiting for the right time to once again control its master.

No wonder that La Bête Humaine was called the most brutal novel of Les Rougon-Macquart series. Before 60 earlier pages elapsed, we have been offered not less than three murder scenes or murder attempts by three different characters to three different victims. And the murders continued on till the end. Most of all were related to or caused by sexual passion, while others were moved by greediness. At first I was wondering whether the poverty was the root of these beasty passions; when human passion was imbalanced with their brains. However, the murderers came from both the intellectual workers and the uneducated ones, so it’s not that.

Moreover, Jacques was portrayed as an educated man, a dedicated worker with a polite manner. On several occasions, his education and his conscience prevented him to do such low-moral deed, and that’s why Jacques could not kill the man he ought to. But then, Jacques was not a real murderer, he won’t kill a man just because he needed to. When the urge to kill came, it was the ‘beast within’ which dominated his logic and conscience and took over his body. So, whence did the beast come, then? From the way Zola based the Rougon-Macquart series on scientific (taxonomy and physiology) point of view, the answer could be in the hereditary moral corruption. From Jacques’ part, he inherited it from his ancestors—whom were portrayed as ‘a cave man lifted his prey on his shoulder’—and especially from his drunkard parents. Now, did that make sense?

Train dans la neige, 1875, Claude Monet
picturing La Lison, Jacques' train in La Bete Humaine
[source]

I’ve been thinking quite a lot after finishing this book. Basically I can accept Zola’s theory of the human beast, the savage ‘animal’ passion in human. However, I also believe in the human free will; the free will God had granted us since we were born. Physically, human kind had perhaps evolved like animals—as Darwin put it—but one thing is sure, God granted us first, the divine spirit in our soul (conscience) to fight the animal passion, and second, the free will to use or not use it.

In this book, Zola focused solely on the losers, those who failed to use their consciences when deciding the murders. Actually, I have had a very slight hope that Jacques would conquer the human beast somehow, but having been knowing Zola much better now, that would be in vain. I know that Zola always intended to capture the worst of human being in order to awaken us to not falling in the same gutter. Jacques, Roubaud, and several other murderers in this book became murderers because they had both the human beast AND the conscience within, but nurtured the former and shut up the latter. Let’s take Jacques for instance, he knew perfectly well why and when the ‘beast’ would show up in him, i.e. when he was sexually aroused by a woman. Jacques was intelligent enough to know that the only thing he must do to prevent the beast from showing up is to stop making up with women and focused solely his passion to his works. It would need a huge effort, but again, we always have the choices, and the free will to choose one. So, we could not put the blame only on the ancestors, as if some of us were doomed to have ancestors with bad moral, and so we can’t do anything but to accept it, no! We can always fight it. The only question is, would we?

Over all, Zola wanted to point out that the rapidly growing industry turned out not to be in line with overall human civilization. With the new century lurking, came the moral decadence; with the prosperity in some area, came the poverty in others. Zola pictured the irony as hundreds and thousands people rushed in express trains to welcome the modernization without ever realizing others around them who struggled with poverty and beasty passion; poor people whom they must have seen from their window for split of seconds, but whom were unrealistic for them. The cost of modernization was often the humanity!

"People go fast now, they know more... But wild beasts are still wild beasts, and they can go on inventing bigger and better machines for as long as they like, there'll still be wild beasts underneath there somewhere."

And the train of modernization would rush pass the humanity with its indiferrence and dignity; without recognizing that in the deep root of the humanity something would soon emerge; slowly and silently, painfully and terrifyingly....the human beast!

I must thank Zola for this brilliant and appalling book, which allowed me to think and reflect a lot. But besides that, I also loved Zola’s vivid portrays of the railway industry; the busy lives around the railways and the clanking and the hissy voices of train coming and going, leaving one civilization to another. But most of all, I loved how Zola personified La Lison. I was actually deeply touched at the ‘death’ of La Lison—imagine when I was weeping over a locomotive! But that’s just the genius in Zola. They are so vivid and so beautiful. Yes, only now I realize that engine can be feminine. The scenes of La Lison went through the snow will always be my favorite! If other writers 'wrote' beautiful passages, Zola beautifully 'painted' them in his novel as a canvas. I doubt if any movie director could even capture that scene into movie in the perfect emotion and feeling as Zola wrote it; only Zola can do it, in his perfect painted novel!

Five whole stars then—I’d love to grant more if I can—for La Bête Humaine. C’est tres bien, Monsieur Zola, merci beaucoup!

~~~~~~

I read the Oxford World’s Classics paperback version

This book is counted for:

2^nd book for Zoladdiction

5^th book for Turn of The Century Salon

7^th book for 2013 TBR Pile Challenge

41^st book for The Classics Club