Showing posts with label Back to the Classics 2018. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Back to the Classics 2018. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

Back to the Classics Challenge 2018 - Wrap Up

I've done it! I am so happy, proud, but also relieved to have completed this one of my favorite challenges ever. Here's my entries for twelve categories of Back to the Classics Challenge 2018:



A 19th century classicDombey and Son by Charles Dickens
A 20th century classicEast of Eden by John Steinbeck
A classic by a woman authorThe Tenant of the Wildfell Hall by Anne Brönte
A classic in translationThe Sin of Abbe Mouret by Émile Zola
A children's classicFive Go Off on a Caravan (The Famous Five)  by Enid Blyton
A classic crime story, fiction or non-fictionTowards Zero by Agatha Christie
A classic travel or journey narrative, fiction or non-fictionJourney to the Center of the Earth by Jules Verne
A classic with a single-word titleResurrection by Leo Tolstoy
A classic with a color in the titleThe Innocence of Father Brown by G.K. Chesterton
A classic by an author that's new to youHowards End by E.M. Forster
A classic that scares youThe Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien
Re-read a favorite classicThe Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux

Thank you, Karen, for hosting this challenge. I won't do it in 2019, but hopefully I will return the next year more ready and fresh (if you would host it again - which is my sincere hope). [Twitter: @Fanda_A) ]

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

Dombey and Son by Charles Dickens


Mr. Dombey is a proud gentleman. And being proud in Victorian-England terms also meant calculating, stiff, unyielding; without passion, love, or affection. For Mr. Dombey, money and honour are his gods, and he lives solely to achieve them. Mr. Dombey has founded a counting house, and if this company should have had a vision-mission, it would have been: "Dombey and Son"—a company ruled by father and son. To that end, he has married a lady, not because he loved her, but to have a son, why, you'd need a wife! Mrs. Dombey was soon pregnant, and when the time came, she gave birth to.... a girl!

What? Mr. Dombey was dismayed; a girl is not what he has ordered! 'Just ignore her, and now make another baby; this time it's better be a boy!' is what Mr. Dombey has probably said to his wife. And as Mrs. Chicks (Mr. Dombey's sister) used to say, Mrs. Dombey 'made an effort', and with her last breath, she finally gave Mr. Dombey the son he has ordered.

Being a good businessman, Mr. Dombey took no time to plan, shape, and mould baby Dombey into the perfect-partner he has been envisioning; forgetting all along that his son is not a robot, but just a child who needs love and care. And as you can probably guess, his plan was eventually failed.

That was just the beginning; nevertheless from that short little summary you can see that pride would be the main theme of this book. And to emphasize that, Mr. Dombey is not the only example. There is another proud character, a lady, who was Mr. Dombey’s equal: Edith Dombey nee Granger. Can you imagine what would happen when two proud persons are tied in one institution: marriage? Disaster! And as usual, Dickens contrasted the proud couple with several humble characters: Florence Dombey—the unwanted daughter, and another main character in this story, as well some other secondary characters. Their faiths are intertwined in the numerous consequences of the major crime in this story: pride.

Unlike his usual style, in this book, Dickens mercilessly judged and punished the proud unloving father for neglecting and rejecting his daughter's love. He even 'slaughtered' the villain antagonist quite brutally (at least for Dickens' style). Sometimes it even felt almost Zola-ish. It’s not only the brutality, but the way Dickens described Mr. Dombey's psychological struggles with repetitive rhythmic sentences, is also very similar to Zola's. However, Dickens' unique comical characters, his witty satirical prose, and abundant of love—which were his trademark—help making the story more cheerful and warm; the quality which always makes his novels a perfect choice for holiday season’s reading.

4,5 / 5


Monday, October 15, 2018

RIP XIII: The Innocence of Father Brown by G.K. Chesterton


Father Brown is a petit priest with innocent look and black umbrella, whose long experience with men provided him a better understanding of human's passions and characters. That, and his special gift of analysis and observation, has molded Father Brown to a sharp detective. Yes, Father Brown is a pastor and a detective, and this is a detective stories collection.

I am certain that Father Brown detective stories were Agatha Christie's main inspiration for her Poirot’s. First of all, his method of combining human psychology with sharp analysis and deductive. Secondly, his sidekick's name, M. Hercule Flambeu, which was very similar to Christie's legendary Hercule Poirot.

The Innocence of Father Brown composed of twelve detective stories. In four earliest cases, Flambeau was the notorious and elusive criminal who has puzzled the police. It was Father Brown who solved those cases, and at the same time converted Flambeau. He retired from his criminal career, and eventually became private investigator, who sometimes assisted Father Brown as his sidekick.

I took notes of the twelve cases, each is unique and interesting.

The Blue Cross, the introduction story, is a jewel theft. Father Brown was the victim, Flambeau the thief. Chief Valentin of Paris police force was trailing Flambeau, though at the end became only a spectator when Father Brown unfolded the mystery.

The Secret Garden is the best plot twist of the twelve stories. It reminded me of Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd—you know...when the villain turned out to be the _____ [I must stop myself here before spoiling anything!]

The Queer Feet is a simple theft story which also criticized snob rich men who consider themselves center of universe, and at the same time treat their servants as their inferior. It also served as the turning point of Flambeau's criminal career.

The Flying Stars is Flambeau's last crime. It's a classic theft case which involved English dramatic pantomime, where people dressed as Harlequin, Columbine, and the Clown. Then, while the audience was having fun, three diamonds changed hands.

The Invisible Man is a murder without a corpse. It's my favorite. Not only that it's a perfect crime, but also because it involved an interesting social study of how we treat people.

The Honor of Israel Gow is the perfect Halloween reading in this stories collection. It's queer and gothic, taking place in old castle in Scotland, and involving grave digging and skull.

The Wrong Shape can be said the predecessor of Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. The similarity is uncanny, especially the twist. And the way Father Brown solved the mystery by identifying the wrong shape of a sheet of paper was really Poirot-ish.

The Sins of Prince Saradine is cold blooded revenge-murder story. Another plot twist, and a double crime—the “killing two birds with one stone” stuff.

The Hammer of God served as warning for us to be humble, and not to act God. For common eyes, there was a touch of supernatural power in this death case. But Father Brown proved the opposite.

The Act of Apollo is another seemingly-supernatural case. This time involved a fanatic sect and its 'blind' worshipper. It's the most simple but ruthless-cold-blooded murder I have ever read.

The Sign of the Broken Sword is the most unique case. Actually it's not even a case, because Brown and Flambeau only analyzed the history of a legendary general who died in war, and was always identified with a broken sword. Why a broken sword? This question then led to a surprising conclusion.

The Three Tools of Death is murder case with too many weapons. And as usual, something out of place is what interest Father Brown, a starting point to solve the case.

This is my first Chesterton, and I would read more from him. The Man Who Was Thursday has been in my radar for some time. Father Brown might not be my favorite detective stories—at times the story is too queer for my taste—but it is quite entertaining if you feel like reading some fast-paced stories.

3,5 / 5


Monday, August 13, 2018

Howards End by E.M. Forster


Howards End depicts three English families from three different classes whose lives were accidently intertwined. There are the Wilcoxes—the wealthy and business-minded, the Schlegels—the cultured rural middle classes, and the Basts—the poor and submissive working classes.

The story began with Helen Schlegel's (the youngest of the girls) short love affair with Paul Wilcox, which then continued in Margaret's (Helen's sister) friendship with Ruth Wilcox, Paul's mother and mistress of a country house called Howards End. Ruth is the only Wilcox who loves the house as a home, cares for its lovely garden, trees, and all. She values the 'spirit' of the house; while the others only value Howards End as property; they care more about motors, business, money, and luxury. And that's why she connects well with Margaret because they both believe in personal relations, in family ties, which 'build the spirit'. Before Mrs. Wilcox's sudden death, she bequeathed Howards End to Margaret. As business-minded family, of course the Wilcoxes cannot accept this, and they decided not to follow her wish.

Leonard Bash is a poor clerk of a bank who wishes to step up to middle class by way of culture and learning. He met and got to know the Schlegels on an opera night. The Schlegel girls heard from Henry Wilcox (husband of the late Ruth Wilcox), that the bank where Leonard works is in financial trouble. They told Leonard this, and advised—even  encouraged—him to resign.

Margaret and Henry Wilcox then fell in love and soon got married (though opposed by Wilcox children and Helen). Soon after this they learned that the Basts (Leonard and Jacky—the woman who lives with him though unmarried) were financially ruined because Leonard eventually left his proper job but never found another as good as his previous job. Helen the 'ever-emotional' was enraged because Henry was totally unperturbed with the Basts' misfortune. And when it's revealed that Henry has apparently had an affair with Jacky in the past (which was the cause of her ruin), Helen was mad with rage, even to Margaret, who of course forgave and defended her husband, practical as she always is.

The country house which became the set of Howards End the movie


This was my first encounter with Forster. It may not be my favorite, but I enjoyed every moment of the reading. Howards End is either Forster's dream or prophecy of what kind of people who should or would shape England as a nation in the turn-of-the-century (it was published in 1910); whether it'd be the business/industrial people like the Wilcoxes; or the cultured Schlegels; or the working class Basts. Unlike most Victorian novels, I felt that Forster did not judge; he merely gave us glimpses of each class' character, for our own analysis and judgment. To me, Helen is overreacting about the Basts business. Opinion is opinion; the Schlegels should not meddle with Leonard's career. They are right to forward Henry's insight to him, but they or Leonard should have never swallowed it wholly, but then blamed the informer when it didn't happen as they wished. I couldn't blame Henry here. And when Helen was mad at him for ruining Mrs. Bast, while she herself did the same with a married man, well... I think she disliked him for the wrong reason.

In the end, I believe Margaret represents the next ideal generation of England (at least Forster's ideal). Cultured, can accept modernity and respect business culture, but still maintains love of nature, and above all, personal relationship, which makes houses to be homes, and where morality and integrity will keep germinating in the next generation's homes. The mixture of these qualities is the key of surviving the turn of the century, and preparing for the future. Ruth Wilcox is too Victorian, while the other Wilcoxes are too business minded. Both are in the extreme poles.

It has been a tranquil read for me, but I guess it should be read when you are in certain level of calmness in mood; otherwise you'd find it rather flat and dry.

4 to 5 is my final verdict.


Tuesday, July 31, 2018

The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien

I read the e-book version

Right after I closed the last page of LOTR, I said to myself: "Finally... I have conquered thee!!" Indeed, LOTR has been one of books I dreaded most because of its length; but most of all, because fantasy is not my cup of tea. Someone told me to read it as myth, not fantasy; but even myth is my less favorite genre. Then too, people praised it so much that I felt I must at least give it a try. In fact I have tried years before, reading the Indonesian translation, but only after the first pages. I got bored, and gave up. So this time I 'forced' myself to read all the three books from first page to the last. And I did, yay!

As everyone seems to have read LOTR, I need not taking effort to write the summary. In short, a group of nine delegations was assigned to destroy a dangerous ring, lest the Dark Lord, who was rising in power, found and used it to rule the Middle Earth. Curiously, from the nine members, the fellowship composed of four hobbits—creatures that were famous of being weak and lazy (they were also called 'halflings'), one wizard, two men, an elf, and a dwarf. Trusting a job so crucial against such powerful enemy to some hobbits seems absurd. That Frodo is the ring bearer—because his uncle, Bilbo Baggins, was the latest owner and has bequeathed the ring to him—it was understandable that he was one of the delegations. Sam Gamgee is his esquire, so he too must go. But Merry (Meriadoc) and Pippin (Peregrin), why must they? But that is one of the most important points that lay behind this adventurous epic: minority and diversity.

While there was a wizard and a valiant knight and Lord (Aragorn), yet in the end, the greatest heroes were these halflings, who often hindered them during the journey, while complaining about food or pipes, aka the hobbits! I am glad that though people regarded them as "nobody", Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli treated and respected them equally. That is why, I think, Boromir must go very early, because he was no team player; he was too much into himself.

Of the four, my favorite is Sam Gamgee. Here is a simple, warm, and honourable man.. err... hobbit. Heroism is when you face terrible danger, you are horrified and hopeless, yet you force yourself to go through, for the sake of something (or someone) dearest to you. And Sam is simply the highest hero here!

My favorite part is everytime Merry or Pippin was around. I enjoyed the comical or emotional side of their journeys, and how they fit completely with each other. Frodo, on the other hand, is too dreamy and felt a bit unreal to me. At least his hundred-years-old uncle Bilbo was much more vigorous (in The Hobbit) than him.

Finally, of the three books, I liked Book 3 (The Return of the King) the most. Book 1 (The Fellowship of the Ring) is full of flat narration on Middle Earth and its people, and it instantly bored me. The names of the houses, mountains, lands, country, and I don't know what else, overwhelmed me from the first, that I neglected them altogether since Book 1. Book 2 (The Two Towers) was more enjoyable, but the best was Book 3. Overall, LOTR is the modern version of epic fantasy written in poetic prose. Despite my satisfaction of finally reading it, the journey has been rather a struggle—I skipped most of the songs and description of woods or lands. Again, fantasy is not yet my cup of tea (Harry Potter is the only exception), and through the book I have longed for ordinary lives!

And for all that...

3,5 to 5 is my fairest verdict

Thursday, June 28, 2018

[Children Classic] The Famous Five: Five Go Off in a Caravan


The Famous Five sets an important milestone on my bookish life. It literally marked my transition from child to teenager; and it was the first novel I read after years of reading (and being read--when I still couldn't read) picture books or comics. I still remember, being absorbed in the adventures of The Famous Five every holiday; feeling each of it became fun and exciting. My parents were not rich and could not afford going on holidays, so when my friends at school telling their exciting family holidays, I couldn't help silently thinking that MY holiday was far more exciting—if you only knew! 

When Back to The Classics challenge set children classic as one of the categories, I knew I had to revisit my five famous childhood friends: Julian (the oldest and mature one), Dick (the kind and simple one), George (or Georgina--the tomboy and the rebellious one), and Anne (the youngest and innocent one). And last but certainly not the least—in presence as well as in importance—Timmy, the dog!

This time the famous five go off in caravans (the title is deceitful; they actually rent two caravans), intending to have a break from any kind of adventures. This time it will be for leisure only, going lazily to the lake in the summer heat. But adventure usually comes seeking them uninvited, not the other way round. This time they were attracted by a circus caravan, whose procession happened to pass by them. And when they decided to camp near it, the adventure has literarily begun. 

They are fond of and befriend a circus boy: Nobby and his chimpanzee: Pongo. But his uncle is unsympathetic, though he is a clown. One night the uncle: Tiger Dan and Lou the acrobat went up the hill and bumped into the children's caravan. Without reason they asked the children to vacant the space and camp elsewhere. Of course the children refused since it was a perfect spot for camping. Then unpleasant things began to happen; the children wondered why the two men eagerly wanted them to move; what's wrong with this spot up the hill? Then one day Nobby's dog found a lump of meat near the children's caravan, ate it, instantly got poisoned, and nearly died! That was it! So it's not just about camping spot; Lou and Dan must have had a mischievous plan, and the children resolved to investigate it—here at last comes the adventure!

Rereading children classics is really comforting. And as I didn't have to care how the adventure will end, I could chew it slowly this time. And by that, I could capture many things I have missed on my first reading as a child, for example the personal character of the children. I just realised that the lovers for adventures are really Dick and George. Julian is more cautious and sensible. Dick is the kind of friend you would want to hangout with; he seems lazy at times, but very sharp when danger comes. And he's witty too. George is the one I dislike most. I don't like people who pretend to be what they are not. She is not only tomboy, but always pretends or wants people to treat her like a boy. She is also selfish and stubborn. The only thing I like from her is her dog: Timmy! Anne—well, there's nothing new about her. From the first I always see her as a sweet and responsible girl who loves to play mother to the boys (and half boy!).

This is the perfect book to be read in holidays, because in about two third of the book, the story felt cozy and relax. The adventure got tensed only on the last few chapters.

Final verdict: 4 / 5



Monday, June 4, 2018

The Tenant of Wildfell Hall by Anne Brönte


It's official now—Anne is by far the best Brönte! I have read Wuthering Heights (hated it), and Jane Eyre (quite liked it but not impressed), but with The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, I was hooked right from the beginning. Anne used letters and diary as her medium, which enabled her to show the characters' emotion more freely and naturally than if it's in flat narration.

The new tenant of Wildfell Hall mansion is a young widow called Helen Graham, with his little son Arthur. No one knows who she is, where she comes from, or who her husband was. This woman is very reserved—aloof even—and, unlike most women around the rural country, she does not like to socialize; hates gossips and scandals. Her seclusion only creates mystery, and this only gives the shallow society fresh fuel to gossips. Meanwhile, there is a Mr. Gilbert Markham, a gentleman farmer, who, similar to Mrs. Graham, can't endure shallow-minded and hypocrite people of his neighbors and friends. In short, bound by this similarity, he is soon smitten by Mrs. Graham, and she him. They share intellectual, meaningful talks, and similar interests.

But one day scandal is whispered about a gentleman, a Mr. Lawrence—Gilbert's friend and the owner of Wildfell Hall—who was suspected to be intimate with Helen. Gilbert even saw them intimately talking. Crushed and angry, Gilbert stayed away from Helen. However, Helen lent him her diary, letting Gilbert read and learn her real story. Apparently, the enigmatic Mrs. Graham is actually still married to a rouge gentleman, Arthur Huntingdon. He is a tyrant husband, an alcoholic scoundrel, who also cheated on her. Fearing that his bad influence would contaminate their son, Helen run away with the boy; helped by her brother--no other than Mr. Lawrence—who then installed her at Wildfell Hall. Not only clearing any suspicion about Helen's honour, these revelations also raised her already high qualities in Gilbert's eyes.

Between Gilbert's letters to an invisible friend and Helen's diary, Anne brought us readers through this lively, emotional, meaningful, and entertaining story. It's not easy to conclude the central theme of this novel. There is, of course, the love story of Gilbert and Helen, but, alas, how complicated it was! And yet, it is so much more than that. I was hooked by Gilbert-Helen's lively debate in chapter 3—in fact this was the point where I became certain that I would love this book. The debate was about the advantages or disadvantages for a child to be introduced to temptation from its early life in order to make him virtuous. I took pains to quote the dialogs here (though incomplete)—plenty as they are—because I just love them, and because it will actually construct part of the moral theme of this remarkable story!

Gilbert: 
[By teaching the boy to detest wine] "But by such means, you will never render him virtuous.--What is it that constitutes virtue, Mrs. Graham? Is it the circumstance of being able and willing to resist temptation; or that of having no temptations to resist? ...If you would have your son to walk honourably through the world, you must not attempt to clear the stones from his path, but to teach him to walk firmly over them--not insist upon leading him by the hand, but let him learn to go alone." 
Helen:
"I will lead him by the hand, Mr. Markham, till he has strength to go alone; and I will clear as many stones from his path as I can, and teach him to avoid the rest--.... [but] when I see the whole race of mankind (with a few rare exceptions) stumbling and blundering along the path of life, sinking into every pitfall, and breaking their shins over every impediment that lies in their way, shall I not use all the means in my power to insure for him a smoother and a safer passage?"
Gilbert: 
"Yes, but the surest means will be to endeavour to fortify him against temptation, not to remove it out of his way."
Helen: 
"I will do both, Mr Markham."

Helen's opinion, you see, was based on her own experience (of which Gilbert would read on her diary later). Little Arthur, though already armed by his virtuous mother, was still contaminated by his father's evil influence. The only way to save him was by snatching him from his father's company—hence the runaway. So, in my opinion, Helen's opinion is the better.

But I am more interested in their later debate; the feminism aspect in Helen's argument.

Helen: 
"But would you use the same argument with regard to a girl?"
Gilbert: 
"Certainly not."
Helen: 
"No: you would have her to be tenderly and delicately nurtured, like a hot-house plant—taught to cling to others for direction and support, and guarded, as much as possible, from the very knowledge of evil."

In short, Gilbert argued (or seemed to), that woman, when exposed to temptation, would certainly fall. On the contrary, temptation would only strengthen man; which meant that woman is weaker than man, when exposed to temptation. Again, Helen would prove in her diary that Gilbert was wrong, by determinately refusing Mr. Hargrave's love, and later on—ironically—Gilbert's too. And lo, how she endured her four years of living with the cruel 'monster' Huntingdon, and how calmly—albeit hurt and crushed—she endured her husband's betrayal. Do you still think woman is weaker than man, now, dear Gilbert?

Love and marriage is, of course, another central theme of this book. Through Helen, Anne emphasized that a happy marriage is neither about class, nor wealth; but a good balance of love, interest, and virtue. But most importantly, never let others' judgment influence you in deciding who or when to marry; not your dear parents, and certainly not your friends or neighbors. Always have freedom! is what Anne sounded throughout this book; freedom to choose your future husband, and also freedom to leave him if he tortures you in marriage. Let others say what they want; you must listen to your own heart, since it concerns only your future happiness—a very good and relatable advice for young girls these days, especially in some developing countries, where prejudices are still strong. 

Nameless and Friendless, painted by Emily Mary Osborn (1857).
It might was inspired by The Tenant of Wildfell Hall  | WikiCommons

But they are not the only aspect that makes me love this book most. I can mostly relate to Helen Graham because we share many similar habits and principles; and here I will give you some examples using quotes from the book. Just like Helen, I prefer to live in quiet place, because 'I take no pleasure in watching people pass the windows; and I like to be quiet.' I also 'dislike an extensive acquaintance; but if I have a few friends, of course I am glad to see them occasionally.' While in a party or social event, I, too, 'was wearied to death with small talk--nothing wears me out like that. I cannot imagine how they can go on as they do.' I remember, as a child, at my dad's office gatherings, I always preferred to be with dad and his colleagues than with mom and the wives. Oh, I couldn't endure their small talks, even as a child!

This review has been long enough, and I might have stopped here; but I can't just let the misogynist Mr. Boarham and Mr. Hargrave go freely without my scold (yes, I'm talking to you, Sirs!) First of all, never mistakenly take a wife for a pet. Remember that God created woman as partner for man; partner, Sirs, not servant, least of all pet! Man and woman are different; each has unique strength and weakness, but man is never superior to woman; both are equal in their unique way! So, never think for a minute that a woman needs you to temperate, guide, or right her by marrying her! And learn too to notice a 'no' from a woman, either by words or gesture, when you were courting her. When she means it, stop pestering her just because you want to own her! She is not a horse, mind you!

There... with that, I think I have say all I want about this book. Need I say that this book has become my new favorite? Not only with interesting and well developed characters, I also loved how neatly Anne wove the story through the emotion and struggle of the characters; and with a satisfying ending too! Oh, and don't forget the strong Christian values which wrap the other aspects beautifully. And for all that...

5/5 for Tenant of Wildfell Hall—one book I am sure to visit again and again in the future!


Monday, April 30, 2018

The Sin of Abbé Mouret by Émile Zola


Serge Mouret is the son of Marthe Mouret (nee Rougon) and François Mouret, son of Ursule Mouret (née Macquart); meaning he has both Rougon and Macquart bloods running in his vein. Serge has two siblings: Octave (who is most Rougon than the others—appeared in The Ladies Paradise and The Conquest of Plassans); and Désirée, a retarded girl, of whom Serge took under his care.

Like all the tribe members, Serge possesses a certain obsession that is in religion; and so he becomes a priest. He practices total obedience in celibacy and fanatic devotion that leads to mysticism. He intends to cut off any link with the world, and to focus more in his devotion, he requests to be placed at Les Artaud, a remote rural village inhabited by peasants with incest relationship, poverty, and ignorance of religion. At first Abbé Mouret lives tranquilly by drowning himself in total devotion. But abandoning his physical health, he gets ill and loses his memory. A girl who loves to roam in The Paradou, a huge neglected garden, nurtures Serge under instruction of Doctor Pascal Rougon (Serge's uncle). Serge regains his health, but forgets that he is a priest, falls in love with Albine, and even makes love with her under a 'forbidden' tree. Yes, this is a replica of Adam and Eve's Paradise!

This book has so many interesting layers to discuss. I'll try to break it down to several points.

Nature v Church
The battle between nature and church is the main subject of this book. Zola portrayed the Catholic Church as empty, gloom, and dead. He especially disapproved of celibacy, which he believed to be unnatural, because procreation is human's nature. I learned from the Introduction (by Brian Nelson—one of Zola's experts) that when Zola wrote this book, France's birth rate was declining. Maybe this is his critic to the Church, because Zola always believed in fertility.

From the beginning of the story, Nature has tried to invade the Church—sun enters and takes possession of the whole church; sparrows fly into the Church through holes on the window panes; strong farmyard odour enters from front door (the farmyard is managed by Desiree, and is located next to the Church). But the biggest battle of Nature v Church is when Albine seduces Serge. Who wins the battle? As much as Zola liked the Nature to triumph, I think, by making Serge finally triumphs over his sexual desire, and returns to God, Zola has involuntarily given the victory to the Church. *spoiler alert* Although Nature could not be stopped in thriving into Church (Albine's death is taking place at the same time as the birth of Desiree's cow), Nature still cannot fully conquer Church.

Sin and repentance
Maybe this is not Zola’s intention, but this book made me think a bit about sin and repentance. After his memory returns, at one point, Serge feels that God abandons him (right after he feels proud of his own purity). He then succumbs to Albine's invitation, and goes to Paradou to meet her. But when Albine seduces him (taking him to the Forbidden Tree), God guides him again, and he can finally cut off his passionate love to Albine forever. Maybe, when we become proud of ourselves, God deliberately sends us temptation to make us sinned, and is therefore humbling us and making us worthy of salvation.

Le Paradou by Edouard Joseph Dantan, 1900
Naturalism and Research
Judging from the book's main topic, you can surely find naturalism flows abundantly throughout the book. There was a passage where the plants and flowers became alive and at war, attacking the Church! Of course, it's an allegory, but reading it, I felt like I saw it myself! Later, Zola's vivid picturesque narration inspired at least two impressionist paintings: Le Paradou by Edouard Joseph Dantan is one of them. And Zola put big efforts too into his research for this book. He must have analyzed and studied many horticultural catalogues to present so many plants and flowers throughout the book that at one point really bored me! And he has certainly studied the Bible, Catholic Missal, and many devotional books to write vividly of Mass and Sacramental events in great details.

Women, Immorality, and Misogyny
I was quite intrigued by the misogyny level in this novel. Brother Archangias--another religious in Les Artaud (but not ordained?) has a deep hatred towards women; so much that he thinks 'it would be a good riddance if girls were all strangled at birth'. Can you imagine this kind of man being religious?

Les Artaud is actually a tribe, which at the end named the village. Les Artauds people married their own relatives for ages. They are low in morality, and don't go into religion. When girls get knocked up, their concern is only of the loss of hands to work the farm, not of the ruined reputation. Again, getting pregnant means procreation and fertility...

On the other hand, when Serge fell into temptation, I felt that the narrator puts the blame to Albine (the woman brings down the man | woman is temptress); while in fact, both consciously wanted it. It's not the only example, there are several incidents throughout the book. I just wonder.. whether it's a common view in 19th century; or is it a vague evidence that Zola is a misogynist?

The Hereditary Illness
Although becoming a priest, Serge does not devoid of sexual passion. It is through his fanatic devotion and mysticism that he satisfies himself (he adores Virgin Mary as his mistress). It makes sense that, when he loses his memory, his sexual passion reborn through his exposure to the Nature. After his repentance, he switches his devotional focus to God, instead of Mary. Once again, Zola 'proved' his theory of hereditary illness. Could anyone in the family skip it? We should know after Doctor Pascal's final investigation is complete... on the last book: Doctor Pascal.

Meanwhile... 4,5/5 for The Sin of Abbé Mouret.


Monday, March 26, 2018

East of Eden by John Steinbeck


While reading East of Eden last month, my caption on an Instagram post was: "Sometimes a novel can explain the Bible better than a priest." And that was true. Seldom before this, have I ever been questioning why Cain was evil, while Abel was all good, in the Book of Genesis.

If you have not been familiar with the story, East of Eden is following the lives of two families in Salinas Valley: the Trasks and the Hamiltons; though along the way I felt that the Trasks were the center of this book, while the Hamiltons only its satellite. It was within the Trask dynasty that Steinbeck imitated the Book of Genesis, by naming its member (and drawing their destinies) following the symbol of good versus evil: Cain and Abel (C & A). The first generation siblings were Charles and Adam. Like Cain, Charles envied his brother Adam because, loving his father so much as he was, the father preferred Adam's birthday gift than his. Ironically, Adam did not love his father, even almost hated him for forcing him to be a soldier; while Charles loved his father silently, and longed for his affection, but never got it. At one point Charles tried to kill Adam, but failed. And from then on he grew sour in life.

Fast forward. Adam had two sons—twins—who he christened as Caleb and Aron (again, C & A). I don't have to mention which was the symbol of evil and which the good! The envious relationship between brothers was repeated here. Aron was a lovely child, and since birth has effortlessly won everyone's affection, including his father, which made him a spoiled child. While Caleb was a brooding and sinister child. But luckily, this new generation has had a loyal servant in their houshold; an intelligent Chinese man called Lee. It was Lee who first brought up the famous "Timshel" issue onto the surface.

Timshel is a Hebrew word for "thou mayest" in Genesis 4:12: "When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth." (KJV) There were many discussions among Lee and several scholars concerning this particular verse. Different English translations had their own interpretations of this word. But the scholars offered different point of view. The more perfect translation should have been "thou mayest", which could be interpreted as choice, instead of order ("do thou" in other versons) or promise ("thou shalt" in King James Version). This threw a different perspective concerning the original sin we inherited from Adam and Eve. It meant that being good or evil was not rooted from our ancestors, but was all in our OWN choice. We may be good if we choose to.

Back to the story, like Cain, Charles and Caleb were both tainted with the same evil mark. Unfortunately, Charles didn't have a "Lee", who in Caleb's case has totally changed him and, I believe, many lives around him, by giving Caleb a second chance to be better.

Speaking about inherited sin, I have not mentioned the "Eve" aspect. Like in the Book of Genesis, here we have Cathy—Adam’s wife and Caleb and Aron's mother—a woman who seems—if it is possible—to be born with neither heart nor conscience. At first I thought Steinbeck might have used her only as a symbol of evil; for how could a human being be such heartless? But after following her until the end—and reflecting on the “timshel”, I think Cathy was as normal as you and me. She could have chosen the good path, but she took the evil. One thing still puzzled me though. I wonder, do you think the balance between good and evil in us is the same for each person? And is it only love (and the absence of love) that makes the difference? I see the proof in Cathy, Charles, and Caleb (the “C” club), and perhaps Aron too. Adam, however, is an interesting case for me. He did not feel his father’s love; he actually loathed Trask senior. Then how could he grow up an honest, forgiving, incorruptible man? Well…. I guess this is the part where we should say: “It’s God’s mystery…” So, I will end this post by granting 5 of 5 stars for this magnificent book—the magnum opus of Mr. Steinbeck! There were actually more layers of the story to dig out, but this post is already too long, and I think I’d prefer to save them for my future reread, anyway. :)

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Resurrection by Leo Tolstoy


After the real tough War and Peace years ago, I have sought opportunity to read (and love) more of Leo Tolstoy’s. However, I ended despising Resurrection, Tolstoy final work.

The protagonist is a nobleman, Prince Nekhlyudov. He has wronged a peasant girl, Maslova (Katushya), and got her pregnant. Ten years later Nekhlyudov is selected to be a juror in a murder case. To his surprise, the accused is Maslova, the girl he has wronged long ago. The sweet-innocent girl has fallen into prostitution; and it’s all because of him. When Maslova is sentenced to prison in Siberia, Nekhlyudov is determined to redeem his sin by following her, and even marrying her. In the process, Nekhlyudov becomes familiar with prison lives, and he witnesses many injustices commit by powerful people whom he befriended in his life pre-Maslova case. So, the process of helping Maslova also changes Nekhlyudov’s, mentally and morally.

The main critic of this book is the injustice and hypocrisy of man-made laws. Many of the prisoners in the state prison where Nekhlyudov often visits are innocent and mistreated. The authorized legal persons and the riches do not care about the prisoners. Nekhlyudov keeps wondering, how those people can be so blind to not seeing the blunder, and why this injustice keeps happening. And more importantly, what must be done to stop it.

From the theme only, this book looked promising to me, as I am always interested in social injustice topic. However, it seems to me that Tolstoy was drowned too deep into the topic, and sacrificed the style. I found it cold, boring, and almost like reading a preacher. Maybe the translation has an effect too—I read an Indonesian translation—but I also read in Wikipedia that “…Tolstoy was writing in a style that favored meaning over aesthetic quality.”

The story itself is hard to believe and artificial. From the beginning of his involvement with Maslova’s cause, Nekhlyudov has been searching for the bottom of the whole problem. He understood more than before, but was still puzzled. In the last chapter, someone has given him a pocket Bible, which he absent-mindedly put into his pocket. Later when he was in his room, and was racking his brain for THE answer, he accidentally found the pocket bible in his pocket. Then he remembered of the sayings that the Bible has the answer to every question… something like that. And so he opened it casually, and just read the chapter printed there, which was, coincidentally, Matthew 18 (and Tolstoy really put all the verses into the book.) And after Nekhlyudov read them all…. Bam! His mind opened, and suddenly he knew all the answers!

So sorry, comrade! This is just not my cup of tea. 2,5 / 5 is the final verdict. And for the time being, no more Tolstoy for me, thank you.

Tuesday, February 6, 2018

The Phantom of the Opera: Second Reading

Some books must surely be read more than once to get into all the layers it contains! On my first reading of Phantom about seven years ago, I was fascinated more by its gothic theme than by the grotesqueness of its back story. Only now on this second reading did I fully grasp the scary reality underneath the fantastic story; even more because it’s so relevant with the world we live now.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the story, but in short it was believed that a famous Opera House in Paris was haunted by a ghost. Not only demanding to be paid on regular basis, the Opera Ghost (OG) often created inexplicable accidents when the directors didn’t give him what he wanted. Many of the theatre crews have seen scary apparitions. One night a mediocre female singer suddenly became an angelic diva after receiving lessons from an angel of music. These incidents, in the age when superstitious was quite strong, only made the phantom of the opera more sensational.

However, does the phantom really exist? Or is it just a tasteless joke thrown by the resigned managers to prank their successors? We, readers, have actually been warned from the first through the prologue:

“The Opera ghost really existed. He was not, as was long believed, a creature of the imagination of the artists, the superstition of the managers, or a product of the absurd and impressionable brains of the young ladies of the ballet, their mothers,  the box-keepers, the cloak-room attendants or the concierge. Yes, he existed in flesh and blood, although he assumed the complete appearance of a real phantom; that is to say, of a spectral shade.”

Because the opera ghost was indeed a real person called Erik. He was born deformed with corpse-like appearance and—as Christine Daaé put it—smelled like death. It saddened me to read how his mother rejected him because of that. I could not imagine growing up deprived of love. Add to it degradation and humility Erik must have experienced from his youth; and in the place of a supposedly loving and genius man, stands a really hideous monster. So, whose fault is it, if many years later what that man thinks is only revenge? It is inevitable.

My thought when I finished this second reading was: what would have happened if Erik was accepted by the society? He might have built grand architecture and brought brilliant innovations to the opera house for its good. But look now what it gets? Almost a major destruction if an innocent young girl had not bravely and lovingly accepted him as a human being. How just a tiny gesture of affection could make such huge change!

Not just about Erik, I think the phantom of the opera also refers to the marginalized people who worked as fireman or other (seemingly) insignificant jobs at the theater. When Christine Daaé showed the bowels of the opera house to Raoul, she pointed to these firemen as “ghosts”. It seems to me that to the glorious upper world, those underground workers are ghosts—nonexistent and insignificant; ugly things that must be kept hidden and forgotten. How relatable it is with our real world!

5 of 5!

Thursday, January 18, 2018

Towards Zero by Agatha Christie

Being a huge fan of Dame Agatha Christie, I have read many of her books—maybe most of them (she wrote not less than 73 novels—source: wikipedia). Still, her books never bore me. When I thought her method must have been more familiar with my next read, I would be amused to found yet a new unexpected one. And Towards Zero was one of these.

"When you read the account of a murder--or say, a fiction story based on murder, you usually begin with the murder itself. That's culmination of a lot of different circumstances, all converging at a given moment at a given point. People are brought into it from different parts of the globe and for unforseen reasons. […] The murder itself is the end of the story. It's Zero Hour."

It was quoted from Superintendent Battle, who was our detective in this book. If you are familiar with Agatha Christie’s, Battle has appeared with Poirot on several cases. In this one he worked alone, though Poirot’s name still had chance to appear as his inspiration. Anyway, what made Towards Zero very special (at least to me) is the unusual order in which Christie wrote it. Usually a murder committed; then the detective started the investigation. With Poirot (because I am more familiar with him than Marple), it means taking himself into the circle of people connected with the murder—and  into their confidence—in the hope that they will unintentionally reveal their secrets. The order would be: first, the major event (the murder) which leads to small incidents (maybe more murders to cover the murderer’s secret), then Poirot or other detective completed the puzzle, and finally the revelation.

Towards Zero was started from minor unrelated events of some people. Then on certain point they were gathered in a same place, where eventually the murder would happen. This new method allowed us to see the characters unprejudiced, because we still don’t know the victim-to-be and the crime scene. I have never encountered the same method in Christie’s before, and I liked it. Finally, after so many years with my three favorites: Curtain, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, and And Then There Were None, now I officially declare that Towards Zero has become my fourth favorite!

a scene from a French adaptation: L'Heure Zero


Intentionally I did not tell you what the story is about, because it’s almost impossible to tell anything without spoiling the surprises—and there were many, including the ending twist! And, of course, the interesting psychological aspect! Maybe I can only safely say that there would be many coincidences in this story; that it involves a triangle love story of a husband and two wives (ex and current) in the centre, but there are also other lovers beyond it; that there are invalid old lady and old gentleman; and there is also a stranger who had attempted suicide. One of them is cunningly and methodically planning a would-be-perfect-murder. But—and this is what Christie was trying to tell us—there are a lot of things beyond us that can happen; that even the most complex murder could possibly be revealed. Sometimes, the thing can just be a tiny, completely unrelated coincidence. We might call it… miracle.

Final verdict: 5 of 5 - Perfecto!


Monday, December 11, 2017

My 2018 Reading Challenges

The most exciting month has come! December is always full of fun; from Christmas, holiday, and arranging for next year’s reading challenge! Besides Goodreads challenge (I will challenge myself to read 28 books—two books more than this year) and The Classics Club Challenge (I am doing my second round—2018 is the second year), I will be participating in three cool challenges:




Host: Books and Chocolate
Duration: January – December 2018
Goal: Read 12 books

A 19th century classicDombey and Son by Charles Dickens
A 20th century classicEast of Eden by John Steinbeck
A classic by a woman authorThe Tenant of the Wildfell Hall by Anne Brönte
A classic in translationThe Sin of Abbe Mouret by Émile Zola
A children's classicFive Go to Billycock Hill (Famous Five)  by Enid Blyton
A classic crime story, fiction or non-fictionTowards Zero by Agatha Christie
A classic travel or journey narrative, fiction or non-fictionJourney to the Center of the Earth by Jules Verne
A classic with a single-word titleResurrection by Leo Tolstoy
A classic with a color in the titleThe Innocence of Father Brown by G.K. Chesterton
A classic by an author that's new to youWalden and Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau
A classic that scares youThe Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkiens
Re-read a favorite classicThe Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux






Host: Roof Beam Reader
Duration: January – December 2018
Goal: Read 12 books (with 2 alternatives)

*The year is publication year of my copy*
1. Falling Angels by Tracy Chevalier (2002)
2. The End of the Affair by Graham Greene – Indonesian translation (2003)
3. March by Geraldine Brooks – Indonesian translation (2007)
4. Resurrection by Leo Tolstoy – Indonesian translation (2005)
5. Walden and Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau (2009)
6. Cleopatra: A Life by Tracy Schiff - Indonesian translation (2012)
7. The Siege by Helen Dunmore (2002)
8. An Officer and a Spy by Robert Harris (2014)
9. The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood (2001)
10. The Innocence of Father Brown by G.K. Chesterton – Indonesian translation (2013)
11. Dombey and Son by Charles Dickens (1995)
12. The Origin: A Biographical Novel of Charles Darwin by Irving Stone (1982)

Alternatives:
1. World Without End by Ken Follett (2012)
2. A Spiritual Canticle by St. John of the Cross





Host: Becky's Book Reviews
Duration: January - December 2018
Personal Goal: Read 6 Victorian books

_ Book published between 1841-1850: The Tenant of the Wildfell Hall by Anne Brönte
_ Character name in the title: The Sin of Abbe Mouret by Émile Zola
_ Gothic, suspense, mystery: The Turn of the Screw by Henry James
_ Translated into English from another language: A Love Story by Émile Zola
_ British author: Dombey and Son by Charles Dickens
_ American author: Walden and Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau





Host: The Classics Club
Duration: January – December 2018 (second year of originally five years)
Personal Goal: Read 13 books

1. The Innocence of Father Brown by G.K. Chesterton
2. East of Eden by John Steinbeck
3. The End of the Affair by Graham Greene
4. The Ides of March by Thornton Wilder
5. The Sin of Abbe Mouret by Émile Zola
6. Resurrection by Leo Tolstoy
7. The Tenant of the Wildfell Hall by Anne Brönte
8. Walden and Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau
9. The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkiens
10. The Turn of the Screw by Henry James
11. The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood
12. Dombey and Son by Charles Dickens
13. Journey to the Center of the Earth by Jules Verne

Now, let’s hope nothing huge and unexpected will happen next year, so that I can read and blog calmly throughout the year!