An Afternoon Walk (1971) by Dorothy Eden #Reading1971 #20BOS26

🟢 Judging only by this book's title and the particular cover I used for the post, you would think this as a charming slice-of-life novel set in the English countryside with picturesque view, and perhaps a little bit of romance. Well, just wait until you come upon the Kindle version's cover, published in 2013, which I included below. Then, you would realize that this is actually a psychological mystery-suspense with Gothic vibes. It begins with the alluded afternoon walk. Ella Simpson, an ordinary housewife, is taking the walk with her five-year-old daughter Kitty, when they found a derelict old Victorian house with an overgrown garden. They were curious about it and while starting to imagine who had lived there - an Edith definitely, as they saw the name scratched on the window pane - and what had happened to the family, an owl screeched from an upstairs window, and startled and spooked them. When they left the house, Ella felt the uneasiness of being followed.  

🟢 Ella's husband, a salesman called Max, is coming home that day. When she told him about the old house and Edith, he only laughed it out as Ella's silliness and imagination. But his tease didn't end there. During the weeks following the incident, Max repeatedly pointed out Ella's increasing dreamy and forgetfulness, which, he believed, is normal considering the miscarriage that Ella had just had. Then mysterious things started to happen, menacing phone calls, mysterious men following her, and even a few panic-induced prank which added stress to the overwrought Ella. Is it true that she's forgetting everything? That she's imagining things? Is Max's upcoming promotion as export manager the rooted cause of it all - that his jealous colleague is behind all these, like he's always reasoning?

🟢 Fortunately, Ella's new neighbour, Booth, is sympathetic enough to listen to Ella's rumbling stories. He even accompanied her to another walk to the ruined house. Booth is a theater critic, and widower, who lives there with his sister. It is clear from the beginning that he's fallen in love with Ella, and indeed, he is a more suitable husband for Ella than her self-centered and ambitious Max, who was secretly relieved of Ella's miscarriage, as otherwise another baby would interfere with his work. Meanwhile, the newspapers and TV is full about the, first disappearing, then kidnapping, then murder of a woman, which crime was supposedly happened inside the old ruined house. 

🟢 Throughout perhaps two third of the book Eden made us keep wondering whether Ella was really the imaginative kind of woman, or was it all Max's plot to... what? Does he mean to harm his wife? Or is he covering something he ought not to do? Does it have something to do with the woman's kidnapping? However, near the end, I think it would be clearer and clearer what was happening. On the whole, this is an interesting psychological mystery-suspense. Not very mysterious, and not overly suspenseful, but quite entertaining for a comfortable reading. More importantly, it provides a insightful glimpse of that bygone era of early 1970s - which was why I read it in the first place. I am satisfied with how the story ends, and though I'm not overly fond with Ella's dreamy nature (miscarriage or not), Booth's character is what I loved most.

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Read for:

20 Books of Summer 2026

hosted by Annabel @ AnnaBookBel

A Daughter's a Daughter (1952) by Mary Westmacott aka Agatha Christie #1952Club

🟢 I am still struggling to catch up with my reviews, but I can't possibly skip submitting one or two for the #1952Club, can I? So here's the first, an audiobook of a Mary Westmacott's novel. Though I've been reading Agatha Christie's crime novels since teenager, this was actually my first of Westmacott's. I've heard that some of them are rather bleak, and this one confirmed that.

🟢 Ann Prentice is a middle-aged widow who lives with one daughter and a servant-slash-companion. She's been leading a quiet and happy life, and it seems that her only worry, at present, is what she's going to do after her daughter became independent as a young woman. That's when a complication is thrown on her, in the shape of a widower called Richard Cauldfield, with whom she's falling in love, but of whom, her daughter Sarah is disagree.

🟢 Richard Cauldfield is a shy, stubborn, insecure man, who in general dislikes modern women. Naturally he dislikes Sarah from the first, but feels the need of being kind to her, resulting in a series of blunders, which makes Sarah hates him even more. Confronted with constant quarrels and bickering between the two, Ann is torn between her love for her daughter and her lover. The first would mean she'll have to sacrifice her own happiness. What will a mother do in this circumstance?

🟢 The plot seems like a simple one, and honestly, I had never expected that this book would be a thought-provoking psychological drama. I'm already familiar with Christie's psychological analysis in her crime stories (it's this side that made me loving her in the first place), and this one feels like she was presented at last with an opportunity to freely play with it. And didn't she do it wholeheartedly! The result is a very powerful, poignant phycological dissection of each character, in a conflict. And it's the kind of process that we could relate much - the sacrifices we make for our loved ones; the lies we make that what we do are for others' good; and the denials that we are fine. We just live with it thinking that everything's fine, until a clear-headed someone bluntly scolds us and opens our eyes. This someone in this story is Dame Laura Whitstable, an old friend of Ann, and an expert in psychology - whom I suspect was Christie's own voice.

🟢 It's a brilliant, thought-provoking story that makes you reflect about happiness. Is it worth fighting for one's personal happiness, even if it means making others uncomfortable or even unhappy?

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐1/2

Read this book for:

The 1952 Club

hosted by Simon @ Stuck in a Book & Karen @ Kaggsy's Bookish Ramblings

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

If God does not exist, then everything is permitted—this seemed to be the central point of argument Fyodor Dostoyevsky brought up in The Brothers Karamazov. Originally intended to be a trilogy, he wrote this amazing book to follow the life of a notorious family, the Karamazovs; from the father: Fyodor Pavlovich, to the three (legitimate) sons: Dmitri, Ivan, Alyosha, and (most probably) illegitimate son: Smerdyakov. They are entangled into an intricate love-suspicion-jealousy-hatred relationship throughout the story, which lead to destruction both to (most of) themselves and to people around them.

So, how did Dostoyevsky put the above argument into this nicely-woven story? From the beginning the doubt and rejection of God and immortality scattered throughout the chapters. But the most serious one is in these two famous chapters: “Rebellion” and “The Grand Inquisitor”. In “Rebellion” Ivan poured out his disappointment of God for letting injustice and suffering happened to innocent people, apparently, for nothing. While “The Grand Inquisitor” is a poem Ivan wrote to question about free will God had imposed upon man. He believed that free will is impossible burden for mankind, because we will always have to answer to our consciences; that we will never be happy whichever path of life we choose, good or evil. If that was the case, then why wasting your energy by doing good? Is that true? Dostoyevsky let us readers judge the case by following the faith of the Karamazov brothers.

Of the three (plus one—the illegitimate) sons, Alyosha was the only one who chose “good” from the beginning. However, he too had doubt—albeit small—when his beloved Father Zosima’s corpse decomposed shortly after his death, while everyone was almost sure a miracle would happen to the saintly monk. But Alyosha soon got through his doubt. Dmitri, on the other hand, started as a scoundrel and sensualist; have plunge to the lowest, but finally managed to crawl up to the light. In the crucial moment, “something inside” ripped him from the fatal act—that is conscience.

But the most interesting case is Ivan. His “conversation” with the Devils shows how strenuous the battle of his conscience was; how bad his soul has been contaminated by evil power. Ivan was not atheist; he just did not accept God’s “interference” in human life; hence his belief of if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. That way, so he believed, man could do whatever he likes without weighing his conscience, and that would make him happy. This ideology eventually provoked a murder, and Ivan did suffer from his conscience. I’m glad though that in the end his good conscience won the battle at the end.

Moral value of this book is, that man must try first to understand God’s plan for humankind; and this must not be done with mind only, but much more with reflective soul. To logical mind, conscience did make one suffer; either when he tries to be good or, even more, when he does evil. And to be good is arduous, especially when one is born from a bad family like Karamazovs. What then? Dostoyevsky answered this by writing quite lengthy passages of Father Zosima’s speeches in the early chapters—which, I confess, seemed not to be related to the story when I read it, but made sense in the end. These passages contain some aspects that were missing from Ivan’s ideology: humility, and “all responsible for one another”—the later applied not only in evil, but also in love or good deeds. Young Zosima’s turning point moment was marked by his humility to his servant whom he has beaten the night before his planned duel. The same worked for Alyosha. Remember how Alyosha, when he was disappointed at Father Zosima’s humiliation, went to Grushenka’s, and what has made him turning toward “light” again then? Is it not after Grushenka pitied him; that Alyosha was astonished that she had pity on him—he who was nobody? Is it not a remark of humility too? Lastly, the remark of all responsible for one another appeared in Ilusha and the children story. Ilusha’s sorrow was caused by Dmitri is an example of how one evil deed to one person might cause suffer to a lot of people. The same also applies to love and good deeds.

So, Ivan’s ideology might partly be right; that free will could cause suffering. But on the other hand, it is also true that from freewill too love, charity, affection, and in the end happiness, was born.

5/5 stars for this great book; I would like to reread it someday!

Tender is the Night

Once or twice a year you would have stumbled upon a book that leaves your soul troubled. This year Tender is the Night was it for me. This book is the last completed novel from F. Scott Fitzgerald; he was in the writing process of The Last Tycoon when he died in 1940. I am not quite sure whether Fitzgerald has intended this book to be his semi-autobiographical story, but the characters and the conflicts have a lot of similarities with the writer’s private life. Doctor Richard “Dick” and Nicole Diver was a lovely couple among the upper-middle class of Americans, who, in the 1920s had great interest in travelling to Europe to learn the culture and expand their businesses.

Although it seems, at first, that the story would be narrated by an adolescent Hollywood actress, Rosemary Hoyt; it would turn out on the second and third book, that it was all actually about the Divers. Dick Diver was a psychiatric, while Nicole was his wife as well as his patient. She was a patient in a psychiatry clinic when Dick first met her; a very pretty young girl with schizophrenia. She was very in love with Dick, and though he first declined, Dick finally agreed to marry her after she was released from the clinic. It was easy to assume that Nicole represented Zelda, Fitzgerald’s schizophrenic wife; while Dick’s faith in this story was how Fitzgerald saw Zelda’s mental disorder which has ruined their marriage and, at certain point, the writer’s personal life and career.

Apart from her beauty, Dick married Nicole also for her money. Witnessing his father’s life in poverty apparently encouraged young Dick to pursue his ambition as a famous medical doctor. He might have been successful, and his marriage might have been a happy one, if their course did not accidentally cross with that of Rosemary Hoyt. Young, innocent, beautiful; she had just the perfect combination to corrupt a reserved man (son of a Reverend) who was struggling with his schizophrenic wife. After the short affair, Dick seemed to lose balance of his life. He fell to alcoholism and neglected his career; he became bitter and cynical to others, that his friends excluded him. On the contrary, as he was weaker, Nicole became stronger. She found that she could slowly detach herself from her husband’s influence, and found another love from her longtime suitor.

Nicole is like a parasite to her husband, although she did not do it on purpose, as it was because of her mental illness and instability. But I think the struggles to protect and to balance his wife for more than ten years of marriage have absorbed Dick’s vitality and morality. Nicole’s mental illness was triggered by the incest committed by her father. Maybe this had something to do in Dick’s fall, like a poison that never completely vanishes from the air once it is polluted. In the end what Dick has done to Nicole is a sacrifice; no matter whether he has done it purely for love, or innocently for his ambitions. Whichever it was, I think Dick, or (if this story truly represents the writer’s feeling) Fitzgerald, has done a goodness in bringing a schizophrenic person to reach her fullness of life at last. Sometimes, great deeds demand greater sacrifice….

It was really heart-wrenching to follow Dick’s struggle after Nicole left him. I kept asking myself, how Nicole could be so selfish towards her husband after what he has given her. But to expect an unbalanced woman to guide her husband back to the right path is impossible. So I guess, in the end, I could not blame any of the two. Their faith is inevitable. I think Fitzgerald himself only wanted to express his feeling to the world by this story.

Just like in The Great Gatsby, I think Fitzgerald used a lot of metaphors in this book. Things which I thought were irrelevant to the plot, might have been these metaphors. I felt there were a lot more than what I could grab now. Compared to Gatsby, Tender is the Night is slower and sometimes rather flat, but maybe it’s me who still cannot find the deeper meanings; I don’t think Fitzgerald has ever wasted sentences to no purpose. I think it’s a good excuse to read the book again in the future; then, perhaps, I might find it more beautiful than what I think now.

Nevertheless, I give four stars for Tender is the Night in this first reading.

~~~~~~~~~

I read Penguin Classics hardback edition

This book is counted as:

79^th book for The Classics Club Project

6^th book for Back to the Classics 2014 (American Classic)

78^th book for 1001 Books You Must Read Before YouDie

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

The Kill

If you think I am going to review a thriller/mystery book, you are mistaken! The Kill is a novel by Émile Zola; the second in his Les Rougon-Macquart series, and there is no murder act in this novel, whose original title is La Curée. From the Introduction (I read Brian Nelson’s translation from Oxford World’s Classics): “la curée denotes, literally, the part of an animal fed to the hounds that have run it to ground.” From the title, we immediately recognize the first naturalism trace on this novel.

The Kill depicted the vulgar political spoils and financial gain during the Second Empire of France. Aristide Rougon arrived in Paris with the hunger of a huntsman. Thanks to his brother who was a minister in the Second Empire, Aristide got his first job as a clerk in city planning office, and changed his name to Aristide Saccard. From the beginning Saccard was a scoundrel; and with his cunning eyes he saw how Paris was transforming itself into a modern city by building new boulevards over the existing houses. He began his ambition with property speculation—buying houses that would soon be demolished, and later on claimed a high compensation to the city. His loyal wife suddenly died in the right time; as the only way to get huge capital money for his ambition was by marrying a rich girl.

Renée was a dynamic woman, and living glamorously in her mansion bored her very much. So, when Maxime, Saccard’s son from his late wife, moved in the house, the mother and the stepson soon began their (half) incestuous love affair. And these two moral corruptions grew eagerly in the Saccards’, and in the end Renée became the victim; she had lost the battle, just like a quarry finished by its hunter.

This novel appeared to not containing enough conflict to make it enjoyable. After the background story of Saccard and Renée, the plot becomes rather flat. Yes, like all other Zola’s novel, the character(s) would have their downfall, but in The Kill, the process is rather too tedious. Zola went describing the interior of buildings in long and detailed passages, that at the end you cannot imagine anything at all. The only comfort comes from the detailed description of Renée and Maxime’s excursion to Bois de Boulogne. As always, Zola’s painter-side could brush his words beautifully onto the pages, as if you are watching lines of paintings on Bois de Boulogne in a gallery. When comes to nature description, Zola is great.

In relation to the Rougon-Macquart series, The Kill pointed out the greediness in gold and women (lust for money and for pleasure); moral corruption which Zola found on the Second Empire of France.

Three and a half stars for La Curée, it’s not my favorite Zola, but the naturalism theme—and his writing style, as always—is still beautiful.

~~~~~~~~

I read the Oxford World Classics paperback edition

This book is counted as:

1^st book for Zoladdiction 2014

3^rd book for 2014 TBR Pile Challenge

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

In Cold Blood

When first reading this book’s title, I thought this Truman Capote’s non-fiction story would cover about cold blooded murderer(s). In a way it was, but it was not only about murder and murderer(s); more than that, this book reminds me of how human can be cold blooded in everyday life. In short, you don’t have to kill someone to be cold blooded.

Capote wrote this story from a true case happened in a small town called Holcomb in Kansas in 1959. Two paroled ex-convicts murdered Herbert Clutter—a successful farmer—with his wife, a son and a daughter. A friend in jail has told one of the murderers—Richard Hickock—that he had once worked with Clutter family, a wealthy farmer who kept a safety box in the house. The friend told him all the details of the house, and using this, Dick invited Perry Smith—another ex-convict—to join him in a robbery plan.

When Capote heard about this murder, he went to Kansas to do interviews and researches about the case, helped by his childhood friend, author Harper Lee. Capote then wrote the story by revealing little by little every small detail of both Clutters and the murderers-to-be, simultaneously. This is one aspect that made this book very interesting. Unlike any other crime novels, you’d from the beginning who would be the victims and who would be the killers. The only question would be the motive; as from the beginning you would see that the victims and the killers didn’t have any relation whatsoever.

This detail revealing of the lives of each characters intensified my emotional involve of the story. The Clutters—especially Nancy the daughter—has had a wonderful life, full of hopes. And they all must endure a horrified experience before they were killed. I could sense how unfair it was, that you have done many good things in life and were, perhaps, about to harvest the fruits, then suddenly two robbers entered your house and killed you almost out of nothing, knowing that all your beloved ones were killed or about to be killed too at the end. There’s hollowness there….

On the other hand, it was also troubling to read how ordinary and innocent little boys could have transformed into cold blooded killers. And this part is actually the most interesting of all. Here Capote took us to realize that a cold blood killer hasn’t grown up by himself; he was created by a complex collaboration of parents, friends, relatives, neighbors, educational and religious institutions, and most of all, society. In short, all of us have our shares of responsibility in building the humanity.

Human’s mind is probably the most complicated thing in the world. Every information, sense and experience that one receives during the whole life would be kept in mind, and each combination of them would give different results. Only by breaking down one’s history of life, we can understand one’s thoughts and impulses. It’s easy to stick a ‘cold blood’ label to a killer, but it would be much more difficult to understand why he has no feeling at all while committed the murder. If a cold blood killer is a product of humanity, then we could not put the blame only on the killer, but everyone who had been related to him.

Then again, from this story, I was amazed at how easy people put death penalty verdict to the killers. People always want to take a shortcut to be released from their problems: ‘There are cold blooded killers over here, fine, just put them in death penalty, and there would be two less dangers in our neighborhood’—case closed. Do they realize, that by sentencing the death penalty, they have become cold blooded killers themselves? The only difference between Dick Hickock-Perry Smith and people in the judiciary is, that Dick and Perry committed the murder against law, while the others did it legally by the law.

In the end, an interesting question must be asked after reading this book, who is the real victim here? I must say that both the Clutters and the killers were all victims. The first were killed by the killers; the later were killed by the systems.

Four and a half stars I granted this book—I read the Indonesian translation, and despite of the good writing from Capote, the translation is poor, and this is really annoying.

~~~~~~~~

I read Bentang Pustaka-Indonesian translated version

This book is counted for:

Baca Bareng BBI 2013: (May - 20th or 21st century classics)

8^th book for 2013 TBR Pile Challenge

3^rd book for 2013 TBRR Pile Mystery Reading Challenge

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

6^th book for New Authors Reading Challenge 2013

44^th book for The Classics Club

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

The Masterpiece

“Should we devote our time and energy to leaving a mark in some way (a painting, a sculpture, an opera, a fortune), or should we indeed ‘spend more time with our family’ and live for the present?”

Zola seemed to let us answer the above question by depicting Claude Lantier’s struggles between arts and life, imagination and reality. The Masterpiece—although not Zola’s masterpiece—is a prominent work from the Father of Naturalism which was also the most autobiographical piece from Les Rougon-Macquart series. Claude was the son of Gervaise and Auguste Lantier (in L’Assommoir), now lived in Paris as a painter. Together with his junior artist friends (painters, architect, sculpture, novelist, journalist), he started the new wave of arts, which later on became Impressionism. Zola’s own personalities could be found in Pierre Sandoz, Claude’s closest friend, a novelist who acted as ‘the glue’ of their friendship since school to their adult lives as artists. They met every Thursday to discuss about the fading Romanticism that they hated, and the urge to bring their fresh ideas of Impressionism to public.

Claude was the leader of this group (it is assumed that either Paul Cézanne and/or Claude Monet or Edouard Manet might have inspired his character). Real objects, natures and outdoor landscapes were his obsession—while at that time painters used models for indoor paintings of mythological or historical themes. Unfortunately his paintings were repeatedly rejected by the Salon des Refusés (an exhibition of works rejected by the jury of the official Paris Salon), while his friends—who adopted his ‘Open Air’ ideas and who were less talented than him—could gain successes little by little.

Bennecourt, where Claude & Christine spent their happy times together
[source]

Claude then found a perfect landscape in Ile de la Cité for his masterpiece, and became obsessed to paint it in big canvas, using his wife Christine as his nude model. However, no matter how hard he had worked on it and revised it many times over, Claude could never put the painting in a meaningful whole; and this depressed him severely. Claude could never recover from his humiliating failure until the end, and it ruined Christine’s life too in the process.

The Masterpiece (originally L’Oeuvre or The Work) is simply Zola’s way to criticize Parisian arts society. Many of the artists were so obsessed to be famous and a master of their art, that they ignored their private lives, happiness and families. They were never satisfied with their works, and worked madly day and night to create such a masterpiece; often drove themselves to severe despair or even madness. But on the other hand, there was also the Salon with its overwhelming tasks to sort art works from hundreds of artists. The Selection Committee would decide whether their works deserved to be hung for the Salon or not. This committee would walk together from rooms to rooms, inspect each painting, and vote for its inclusion or exclusion.

People gathered to discuss Cezanne's painting,
might it be some kind of the Salon?
[source]

I can imagine how tiring the task might have been, and in those pressured events, who could maintain their fair judgment all the time? It was more than possible that a painting of a talented artist would be rejected just because it’s different from the current trend. And don’t forget, there were many collectors who did not understand arts and just took whatever the Salon exhibited as the most valuable paintings to collect. In short, there were so many small wrong aspects in the Salon exhibitions running by men who might not have had enough artistic sense to execute their jobs, while these aspects might have influenced an artist’s failure or fortune, wealthy or poverty.

Although The Masterpiece would not shock you like L’Assommoir or entertain you like Germinal, but it’s enough to take us to see the ugly struggles beneath the beautiful works of arts! Zola wanted also to make us see how a child who was born from generations of drunkards might be deformed either mentally or physically. Claude, in particular, had the problem of madness attack every time he was exposed to an intense emotion. The art was the dearest thing of his existence; it’s his life, it’s his soul….

“What was Art, after all, if not simply giving out what you have inside you?”

But that was also one thing that triggered his madness, and when the madness came, it would dominate him such, that his painting would be one disaster. Oh, poor Claude! The only one which made him happy, caused his ruin. Genius in brain but corrupted in soul….and that was not his fault! It’s his parents’; but most of all, it’s the society…Paris of the late 19^th century, under the Second French Empire.

Although the novel has a rather hopeless tone, it actually marks the turning of the century. The birth of impressionism in arts—and painting is only one of them, because it would change architecture, sculpture, literature, and music as well—would certainly bring a new change to the civilization.

Four stars for The Masterpiece, a very interesting and educating novel! And thank you Monsieur Zola for ever writing it….

“What price glory, then, the thing we’d die for?”

“In life everything comes to an end, but nothing is ever repeated.”

~~~~~~~

I read the Oxford World’s Classics paperback version

This book is counted for:

  

1^st book for Zoladdiction

4^th book for Turn of The Century Salon

6^th book for 2013 TBR Pile Challenge

40^th book for The Classics Club

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

[Conclusion in English is at the bottom of this post]

Ketika sedang berjalan-jalan di malam yang suram di London, seorang pengacara bernama Mr. Utterson bersama temannya menemukan sebuah bangunan tak terurus yang hanya memiliki sebuah pintu. Pintu itu menerbitkan kembali memori tentang sesosok pria kejam bernama Edward Hyde, yang bahkan keberadaannya saja membuat kita merasakan suasana yang amat jahat. Dan memori itu, bersama fakta bahwa Hyde menulis cek atas nama seorang terpandang yang bukan dirinya, membawa kita kepada sebuah surat wasiat yang terkunci rapat di ruang kerja Mr. Utterson. Surat wasiat aneh milik sahabatnya, seorang pria terhormat dan ilmuwan terpandang bernama Dr. Henry Jekyll.

Setelah kejadian itu, berturut-turut Edward Hyde melakukan tindakan kejam berdarah dingin, sementara di pihak lain keanehan demi keanehan terjadi pada Dr. Jekyll. Sang dokter—yang telah menulis surat wasiat bahwa Mr. Hyde, teman yang dipercayanya dan memiliki kunci untuk masuk ke rumahnya, akan mewarisi semua hartanya bila meninggal—sakit dan tak mau tampil di depan umum selama beberapa lama. Hingga akhirnya Mr. Utterson menerima surat wasiat dari Dokter Lanyon, yang bertiga bersama Dr. Jekyll bersahabat erat selama bertahun-tahun. Di suratnya, Dokter Lanyon melampirkan surat lain dari Dr. Jekyll yang hanya boleh dibuka jika pada suatu hari kelak sang dokter menghilang.

Misteri makin mengental, dan puncaknya adalah ketika kepala rumah tangga Dr. Jekyll mengajak Mr. Utterson ke rumah Dr. Jekyll, karena ada kejadian-kejadian yang sangat aneh dan menggetarkan syaraf seluruh isi rumah sang dokter. Apakah yang akan ditemukan Mr. Utterson di sana? Benarkah sahabatnya itu sedang dalam kesulitan? Dan apakah sebenarnya isi surat Dr. Jekyll yang hanya boleh dibuka ketika dirinya sudah menghilang?

Buku ini, meski hanya 128 halaman, menyajikan kisah yang sederhana namun disajikan dengan gaya gothic Victoria-nya yang cantik oleh Robert Louis Stevenson. Kupikir, hampir semua pembaca telah mengetahui paling tidak gambaran umum tentang kaitan Dr. Jekyll dan Mr. Hyde. Stevenson telah mampu menghadirkan nuansa gothic yang suram sejak awal kisah. Meski kita sudah mengetahui misteri yang ada, toh Stevenson mampu membawa ketegangan di pertengahan hingga akhir kisah ini.

Secara keseluruhan karya Stevenson ini mampu menghiburku yang memang menyukai gaya Victoria, namun tetap aku kurang mengerti mengapa Stevenson harus membuka kisah ini dengan berpanjang lebar menjelaskan tentang Mr. Utterson dan sepupu jauhnya, yang amat berbeda dalam kepribadian dan nampak tidak nyaman dalam kebersamaan mereka, namun toh tetap mempertahankan kebiasaan berjalan-jalan bersama di hari Minggu. Kalau toh itu hanya untuk membawa kita untuk berkenalan dengan fenomena Mr. Hyde, mengapa harus se-detail itu? Toh setelah itu si sepupu jauh tak pernah berperan dalam kisah ini, kecuali dalam menjelaskan kisahnya menyaksikan kejahatan Mr. Hyde.

Aku menduga, mungkin Stevenson sengaja menonjolkan adanya dua sisi yang berbeda dari sebuah entitas. Sebut saja kepribadian Mr. Utterson sendiri. Di awal kisah diungkapkan bahwa di satu sisi ia adalah orang yang dingin, kaku , pemalu, membosankan. Namun di sisi lain ia orang yang menyenangkan dalam pergaulan terutama ketika ia telah meneguk sejumlah anggur dalam acara-acara santai. Mr. Utterson ‘keras’ terhadap diri sendiri, tak menyentuh minuman keras dan tak mau terlibat dalam gemerlap duniawi. Namun di sisi lain ia cukup toleransi terhadap sisi liar orang lain, bahkan kadang ia tidak mengecam keliaran orang lain dan malah mendorong mereka melakukannya. Sebuah paradoks, bukan?

Tampaknya Stevenson dari awal sudah mengingatkan kita bahwa dalam diri manusia selalu ada dua sisi yang berbeda ini, sisi terang dan gelap, sisi baik dan jahat. Dr. Jekyll sebenarnya tak jauh berbeda dari kita semua (terwakili oleh Mr. Utterson). Hanya saja ia lebih berani untuk bermain sebagai ‘Tuhan’, mencoba memisahkan kedua sisi itu dan melihat sisi mana yang lebih dominan. Dari percobaannya itu, kita dapat belajar bahwa, sisi manapun yang kita ‘beri makan’ akan mendominasi diri kita. Tinggal kita sendirilah yang harus memilih, sisi mana yang kita biarkan mendominasi hidup kita, karena pilihan itulah yang akan menentukan masa depan dan tujuan hidup kita.

Empat bintang untuk Robert Louis Stevenson!

Judul: The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde

Penulis: Robert Louis Stevenson

Penerbit: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama

Penerjemah: Julanda Tantani

Terbit: Mei 2011

Tebal: 128 hlm

Conclusion:

As you might have been familiar with the overall story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, I won’t bother to write about the story at all. I’m just curious about how Stevenson opened this story. He wrote quite thoroughly about Mr. Utterson and his relative—with whom he used to spend Sundays by walking around the city. Both of them seemed did not enjoy one another’s company, but they kept enjoying their excursions anyway. I kept asking myself, what Stevenson wanted to show us; that people tend to create certain habits—that they think as good habits—to control our wilder sides?

Stevenson also wrote about two different sides of Mr. Utterson’s personalities. He was a cold, shy, and boring lawyer who kept himself from classy drinks and amusements. Here I assume Mr. Utterson was a man who tried hard to live a straight and humble life. But on certain circumstances—in casual parties under the overflowing of his favorite wine, for instance—he would permit himself to let his gaiety spring among his friends. On these occasions he could tolerate wild sides of people, envied them for having fun so freely, and sometimes persuade them to nurture their wildness.

I think Stevenson wanted to emphasize the two sides of kind and evil, good and bad in human’s souls; that we are all (like Mr. Utterson) have it in our soul—not only in Dr. Jekyll’s case. We all have a slight of ‘Mr. Hyde’ in our souls; what made us different are our choices. Dr. Jekyll—in his arrogance—chose to nurture the evil in his soul, because he experienced the freedom in the wildness of Mr. Hyde’s world. At one point Dr. Jekyll could stop his experiment and perhaps he could live the rest of his life in peace, but—just like Adam and Eve—he could not resist the temptation to be ‘God’. He chose to continue the terrible experiment until he could not control it anymore.

In the end, we must always realize that we have both kind and evil in us. And it’s up to us to choose which side we will let dominate ourselves, by nurturing it. Once we chose the wrong one, that could be the end of our lives, just like Dr. Jekyll.

What a wonderful story about good and evil, the everlasting search in human’s lives. But apart from that, I also loved the Victorian gothic atmosphere throughout the story with which Stevenson had enveloped it. It was dark but beautiful.

Four stars for The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

Therese Raquin

Kalau ada satu hal yang paling rumit di dunia dan tak pernah bisa dipahami, pasti itu adalah manusia. Pepatah mengatakan, dalamnya laut dapat diduga, dalamnya hati siapa tahu. Mungkin karena itulah, psikologi adalah salah satu hal yang selalu menarik minatku, meski aku tak pernah mempelajarinya secara serius di bangku kuliah. Yang paling menakjubkan bagiku adalah bagaimana manusia memutuskan untuk berbuat jahat, yang jelas-jelas melawan kodratnya; dan bagaimana ia melawan hati nuraninya setelah melakukannya. Émile Zola benar-benar memukauku dengan caranya membuat sebuah pergulatan batin menjadi gamblang, lewat karyanya: Therese Raquin.

Therese Raquin bukanlah putri kandung Mme Raquin. Ia adalah keponakan yang diangkat menjadi anak oleh Mme Raquin, yang hidup menjanda di sebuah kota kecil di Prancis pada abad 19, bersama dengan putra semata wayangnya: Camille. Dari lahir Camille adalah bocah lembek yang sakit-sakitan. Hal itu diperparah oleh cara sang ibu membesarkannya, yaitu dalam pemanjaan sekaligus pemujaan. Camille pun terbiasa dicekoki oleh obat dan ramuan, dan dikurung di rumah yang gelap dan suram.

Mau tak mau, Therese harus menerima perlakuan yang sama dari ibu angkatnya, meski ia sebenarnya adalah gadis yang sehat walafiat. Dan lihatlah apa yang terjadi…

Kehidupan orang sakit yang dipaksakan terhadap dirinya membuatnya menjadi orang yang tertutup. Ia menjadi terbiasa berbicara dengan suara lirih, berjalan tanpa suara, duduk diam dan tak bergerak-gerak di kursi, memandang kosong dengan mata membelalak lebar. ~hlm. 26.

Therese akhirnya tumbuh sebagai gadis pemurung, acuh, namun di dalam dirinya ada semacam api yang menggelegak, bak gunung berapi yang sedang menggodok magmanya sebelum pada suatu saat yang tepat menyemburkannya dalam sebuah ledakan besar.

Keegoisan Mme Raquin membuatnya mengambil keputusan untuk menikahkan Therese dan Camille. Sesudah itu, keluarga yang aneh inipun pindah ke Paris, dan tinggal di rumah sekaligus toko alat jahitan yang suram di Passage (Selasar) du Pont Neuf. Camille yang suka mengajak teman-temannya singgah, suatu hari memboyong teman lamanya: Laurent. Saat melihat Laurent, Therese bagaikan tersihir. Tak seperti suaminya yang lembek dan berbau seperti anak kecil sakit-sakitan yang mebuat Therese jijik, Laurent terlihat benar-benar seperti seorang pria. Dalam diri Therese pelan-pelan tumbuh hasrat yang kuat yang, kupikir, merupakan pelampiasan atas keterkungkungan hidup wanita itu selama ini.

Di sisi lain, Laurent adalah jenis pria paling menyebalkan di dunia. Pria yang hanya mau bermalas-malasan dan mendewakan kenikmatan lewat makanan dan seks. Dan pria seperti ini lah yang melangkahkan kaki ke rumah keluarga Raquin dan menemukan wanita yang bisa memenuhi hasratnya: Therese. Tak butuh waktu lama, segera terjadilah perselingkuhan panas penuh gairah antara kedua manusia ini. Laurent dan Therese menemukan kenikmatan dalam perselingkuhan mereka, dan mulai timbul keinginan untuk melakukannya dengan bebas. Satu-satunya penghalang bagi keduanya untuk bersatu, adalah Camille. Tanpa perlu terucap, dosa perzinahan yang mereka lakukan mulai menggiring mereka ke dosa berikutnya.

Kisah di atas hanya memakan sepertiga dari keseluruhan buku ini. Dua pertiga sisanya dipenuhi oleh Zola dengan kajian psikologis Therese dan Laurent setelah melakukan kejahatan mereka. Dan di bagian-bagian inilah terletak kekuatan buku ini. Zola tak hendak hanya bertutur, ia sedang melakukan semacam analisa ilmiah. Bak seorang ilmuwan yang ingin mengamati reaksi tertentu yang timbul bila ia mencampurkan dua substansi berbeda, begitulah Zola menyajikan perubahan watak yang akan terjadi apabila dua insan manusia yang berbeda watak namun sama-sama labil dipertemukan oleh cinta. Dan ketika hasrat mereka tak terkekang, hasrat itu membawa mereka pada tindakan yang tak bermoral serta pengecut. Namun yang paling menarik, bagaimana reaksi watak mereka setelah tindak kejahatan yang sama-sama mereka lakukan itu.

Tubuh mereka menggeletarkan getaran-getaran yang sama, dan jantung meraka, yang membentuk semacam persatuan yang merana, berdebar-debar kencang gara-gara perasaan ngeri yang sama. Semenjak saat itu, mereka hanya mempunyai satu tubuh dan satu jiwa untuk merasakan kenikmatan dan penderitaan. Kesamaan itu, perasaan menyatu itu bersifat kejiwaan dan merupakan fakta psikologis yang sering terjadi di antara orang-orang yang terperangkap bersama-sama gara-gara suatu ketegangan mental yang luar biasa. ~hlm. 166.

Seringkali manusia menggembar-gemborkan tentang kebebasan. Padahal tak ada kebebasan mutlak dalam kehidupan kita. Setiap tindakan kita membawa kita pada konsekuensi yang lain. Therese dan Laurent juga mendambakan kebebasan yang harusnya tak mereka miliki. Akibatnya, alih-alih merasa bebas, mereka justru menjadi budak dari konsekuensi tindakan mereka sendiri. Mengerikan bagaimana hati nurani manusia menghukum diri mereka sendiri dengan caranya sendiri pula. Pergulatan batin Therese dan Laurent begitu intens dan digambarkan dengan jelas dan detil oleh Zola hingga pembaca seolah turut mengalami mimpi-mimpi buruk mereka yang menyeret mereka ke ambang kegilaan.

Saat terbit, Therese Raquin mendapatkan kritikan bertubi-tubi dari para kritikus maupun sesama penulis, yang menganggap Therese Raquin mengumbar kejorokan dan kevulgaran. Dalam edisi kedua yang diterbitkan tahun 1868, Zola pun menulis pendahuluan untuk menjelaskan latar belakang di balik kisah Therese Raquin.

Seperti telah kuungkapkan di paragraf awal, aku menyukai telaah psikologis dalam kisah fiksi. Dua penulis terfavoritku: Agatha Christie dan John Grisham pernah menghasilkan buku-buku yang mengupas psikologi manusia saat menghadapi sesuatu. Christie dalam banyak novelnya, namun Tirai (Curtain) yang menjadi favoritku. Sedang Grisham lewat The Chamber (Kamar Gas). Namun keduanya belum apa-apa bila dibandingkan Therese Raquin.

Jujur, buku ini tergolong berat dan menguras emosi. Bukan jenis buku yang akan memberi hiburan, tapi jelas buku ini juga merupakan jenis buku yang takkan pernah anda lupakan. "Gema"nya akan terus memenuhi pikiran anda selama beberapa waktu lamanya setelah anda menutup buku ini. Bravo Émile Zola! Meski dulu banyak orang mencelamu, tapi aku yakin tak banyak orang lain yang mampu menghasilkan karya seperti ini. Tiga bintang untuk Therese Raquin!

Judul: Therese Raquin
Penulis: Émile Zola
Penerjemah: Julanda Tantani
Penerbit: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama
Terbit: Agustus 2011
Tebal: 336 hlm