North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell

Margaret Hale has been living happy and peacefully in a Southern small village: Helstone, when suddenly her father - a parishioner - announced that he has decided to leave the Church due to his "miserable doubts". As it was disgraceful in 19^th century, he must leave Helstone, and consequently with the whole family, to live in a Northern industrial (cotton manufacturing) city called Milton.

Like the two poles of earth, the North is completely different from the South. It's noisy, busy, harsh, ugly. But live there they must. Margaret was then introduced to the never ending conflicts between masters and workers. And to a handsome mill-owner, self-made entrepreneur called John Thornton.

This was my first Gaskell, and I'm slightly surprised to find that her writing was straightforward and bold, very unlike the flowery Dickens - who was her mentor when she first became author. Frankly speaking I personally didn't find Gaskell's writing very distinguishable, but her topic is very engaging - and bold for her time.

For 25 years I have been working as a business assistant in two different trading companies selling industrial parts to factories. So I am quite familiar with Gaskell's industrial topic: masters vs workers. In my opinion, the never ending conflicts will always be there, and will never end. What about Gaskell's ideal relationship of Mr. Thornton and Higgins, then? Wouldn't it possible to apply such mutual understanding atmosphere in real factories? My answer is: it's just a dream! I don't know how it goes in other countries, what I offer here is my personal insight from my own experience in Indonesia. There might be some factory owners like Thornton, who really care for their workers, and not merely about profit; who see the workers as assets, not machines. But seriously, if I were a master myself, and must continually be annoyed by strikes demanding unreasonable higher wages, I would do what Thornton or others did in this novel: punish the perpetrators and replace them with better ones. Or, just move the factory away.

But how about the workers' perpetual poverty? Don't the masters have consciences? More often than not (again, from what I see), it's the workers’ own foolishness. They keep demanding high wages, but work lazily. They spend more than their income, so they apply for credit to the masters. If the masters refused (because by and by they'll take it for granted), they'll say that the masters are bad, they don't care for them, and so on. Mr. Thornton makes a good example by approaching the workers and treating them kindly (eating lunch with them, for example). The reality is, no sooner than the masters allow himself to be placed almost equal with the workers, why, the workers won't pay any respect to them. They will get lazier and more demanding. No, I don't buy Gaskell's suggestion in this novel. Clearly she didn't understand industrial business. I understand that she wrote this to promote humanity, but then, the mill owners were businessmen, they just do what others do: to make a living. If the workers cannot cooperate, the company could not running well for both sides.

Apart from the industrial controversy, North and South is also about the struggle of its characters to face what life has in store for them. There's a bit of a Darwinian touch in it. Of the Hales, only Margaret was able to adapt to her new life, to make peace with the past (mistakes), and to welcome the future. And that's why she eventually meets a brighter one. Her mother is the opposite; she could never accept reality, kept going to the golden days of her past. The bitterness finally eroded her life. The same happened to Mr. Hale.

Speaking of Mr. Hale, I still don't get what his "miserable doubt" really was. Does it mean that he did sermons and other services for years, then one day did not really believe on what he's been preaching? He said it isn't religion, but then what? Of all characters, I hate him most, for being weak (vague), coward, and selfish.

Second of all, I hate Mrs. Hale too for being whiny, self-centered, irresponsible. How could she demand Frederick - the fugitive son - to come home while the risk was that big for the family? Being dying doesn't mean you can ask anything without thinking about the safety of others! And that was a foolish decision too from Margaret to grant it - unfortunately not the last either! She seems to always say or do things she shouldn't, and never do what she should.

John Thornton is my most favorite. He reminded me of my own boss - a self-made businessman, tough, fair, no nonsense, respectable, kind hearted but not sentimental. If his worker went to do riot against him like Boucher did in this novel, I'll gladly recommend him to be sacked!

All in all, I loved North and South. It offers a different but relevant and interesting topic compared to general Victorian novels. Not one of my most favorites perhaps, but it's been heart-warming and delicious. I'd certainly read more from Mrs. Gaskell!

Score: 4 / 5

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.

Germinal: My Second Reading

It is almost three years ago when I first read Germinal, and instantly fell in love with the book—and much more with the author! This year I have decided to give it a second read; to see if I will still find it as great as my first reading. The interesting thing of rereading is that you know what you’re going to get throughout the book, and especially in the end, you know how the story would go. In the case of Zola books, you might not feel the “blow” as intensely as when you read it for the first time. That is what I got from my Germinal second reading.

I also found out that when the blow was softened, the second read allowed me to feel more of the emotion of each character, and to relate to them better than before. Moreover, I could see now why Germinal has become Zola’s masterpiece. From eight of his novels—seven from The Rougon Macquart series—I have read so far, Germinal is the most beautiful in term of writing. It is more flowing; not as intense as Zola’s other books, and Zola did not put his focus entirely on the working class, but also on the bourgeoisie. It put more emphasizes on how the society needed to change; because both sides were slowly crumbling. If the system remained unchanged, the Voreaux tragedy will crush everything in it; just like a giant beast who swallowed them up greedily—as Zola put it. The tragic incident between old Bonnemort and the daughter of Voreux’ stock holder highlighted the faulted system. It happened naturally, it’s nobody’s fault it seemed, but the old corrupted system.

One thing that perhaps distinguished Germinal from its siblings in The Rougon-Macquart series is the hopeful ending; it really effaced the dark tragedy of the Voreux, as if to say that the miners’ sacrifices will not be useless after all; that there is always new and brighter hope which is germinating from the debris of a revolution.

Zola is always good at painting irony in his novels. He described events so perfectly detailed that you would get the irony without further explanations. When the strike was on going, the manager and the stock holder (the bourgeois) were having a luncheon. While the miners were starving and risked their lives by doing the strike to ask for justice, their masters’ concern was at whether the pâtissier’s delivery boy could deliver the vol-au-vent crusts on time for lunch, despite of the strike. The bitter irony lays in the ending of chapter six-part five; it was the scene after the strike was over, when the sun had set, and everything was calm again:

“…The plain was drowning beneath the thick night; there were only the black furnaces and the coke ovens ablaze against the tragic sky. Heavily, the gallop of the gendarmes approached; they landed up in an indistinguishable somber mass. And behind them, entrusted to their care, the Marchiennes pâtissier’s vehicle arrived at last, a little covered cart out of which jumped a small drudge of a boy, who quietly went about unpacking the vol-au-vent crusts.”

What an ending!—and Zola was great in closing each of the chapters in exactly that beautiful-bitter-ironic way. Some are more beautiful than others, but my favorite remains still in the very ending:

Now the April sun, in the open sky, was shining in its glory, warming the earth as it went into labour. From its fertile flanks life was leaping forth, buds were bursting into green leaves, and the fields were quivering with the growth of the grass. On every side seeds were swelling, stretching out, cracking the plain, filled by the need of heat and light. An overflow of sap flowed with whispering voices, the sound of the germs expanded in a great kiss. Again and again, more and more distinctly, as though they had come right up to the soil, the comrades were hammering. In the fiery rays of the sun, on this youthful morning, the country was pregnant with this rumbling. Men were springing forth, a black avenging army, germinating slowly in the furrows, growing up for the harvests of the next century, and their germination would soon overturn the earth. 

Again—what an ending!

On my previous post I have written about my first impression on (second reading of) Germinal; particularly about Étienne. Well, I think, apart from his personal inherited weakness and indecisiveness, Étienne is a kind man. I liked him for his ability to move forward from past faults, for his kindness towards others; in particular Catherine and the Maheus, and for his principles.

My favorite passage is the one concerning Bataille, the old horse. The way Zola portrayed its agony is brilliant! I think I shed tears for the horse more than for the Maheus’! Zola’s words can be very touching too at times. And reading this passage, only now that I realized that what Bataille felt actually reflected the agony of the miners. And that came in this poetic passage:

“…He galloped on and on, bending his head, drawing up his feet, racing these narrow tubes in the earth, filled with his great body. Road succeeded to road, and the junctions opened into forks, without any hesitation on his part. Where was he going? Back, perhaps, towards the vision of his youth, to the mill where he had been born on the bank of the Scarpe, to the confused recollection of the sun burning in the air like a great lamp. He desired to live, his beast’s memory awoke; the longing to breathe once more the air of the plains drove him straight onwards to the discovery of the hole, the exit beneath the warm sun, into the light.”

It was the agony of a creature who had been used from his early days; who never knew other existence besides what he was submissively forced to take; but one day a longing for a better existence would stir deep in his heart; which made him galloping furiously into the light. It made one reflect a lot, didn’t it?

Now, I have been praising this book over and over again, here, as well as in other comments/thoughts, and I don’t think there would be enough words to describe how I love Germinal! I love the beautiful narration, love the vivid description of the mines (Zola took much efforts in doing observation in this), and love the hopeful atmosphere. In short, I love everything about this book! If you aren’t yet convinced to read it by now, try at least!

~~~~~~~~~

I read Wordsworth Classics paperback

This book is counted for:

Zoladdiction 2015 and “Germinal” Read Along

The House of Mirth: Final Review

I think I have just found a favorite female author, who can be juxtaposed with Zola’s genius, intense, and beautiful naturalist style: Edith Wharton. The House of Mirth was my first book by her, and I loved it so much!

Lily Bart is 29 years old, and in the turn of the century, a girl of her age should have married. Lily is very charming, but she is a poor orphan girl who depends on her conservative aunt’s generosity. Nevertheless, she can make her way in the socialite world. Since it is her only world; she has grown up and was brought for one aim: to get a rich husband and live comfortably. The problem was not that no one attracted to Lily; on the contrary, she was charming and intelligent, and had many admirers. Lily’s difficulties started because she could not make her mind of what she really wanted. On one hand she needed to marry a rich man to support her luxury taste, while on the other, she yearned for the freedom of choosing her own life. Through the book she constantly had this doubts; and as she was too lazy to make decision, she kept putting the problem behind, until it exploded, and drown her down.

It might not become too bad if Lily has lived in our modern era. However—and this is what Wharton wanted to emphasize—in the late 19^th century, American high society only cared for money and fame. Whoever had one or both would be welcomed to the circle; they didn’t care about morality. Friendship and love were often depended on status; one would praise immoral men and women if they had influences, which one could benefit to step higher on the ladder of so called society. In this circle did Lily accidentally hurt a rich and influenced woman, and in order to take revenge—and to divert attention from her scandalous affairs—she spread negative issues about Lily to ruin her reputation.

In the midst of hypocrite society, a girl would certainly ruinous just because of one vague scandal, no matter whether she really guilty or not. And since Lily was poor and did not know other life apart from what she was brought up for, she could not runaway from the ruin. Her friends knew that she was innocent, but they could not help her lest their ‘patron’ abandoned them too.

Like Zola, Wharton was a naturalist too; their style has a strong similarity, although Zola’s is stronger while Wharton’s a bit softer. Like in Zola’s, I loved Wharton’s metaphors and her beautiful prose, like in this passage. In terms of naturalism theory, The House of Mirth tells us how human being is produced and shaped according to their natural habitat. Wharton also pointed out the moral corruption on the early 20^th century, while stock market was being introduced and many people became suddenly rich by it. They were worshipping money and status, but neglecting humanity (you can read more of my analysis of the theme in my WEM posts). And Wharton crafted them in a beautifully-flowing prose.

Five stars for The House of Mirth! And I would certainly read Mrs. Wharton’s other novels.

~~~~~~~~~~

I read Penguin English Library paperback edition

This book is counted as:

5^th book for Back To The Classics 2014 (Woman Author)

78^th book for The Classics Club Project

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

The Well-Educated Mind Self-Project

Nana

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~~~~~

I read the Oxford World Classics paperback edition

This book is counted as:

 2^nd book for Zoladdiction 2014

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

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

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

69^th book for The Classics Club Project

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

A Farewell To Arms

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

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

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

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

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

Three and a half stars for A Farewell To Arms.

~~~~~~~~

I read Vintage Classics paperback edition

*This book is counted as:*

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

51^st book for The Classics Club Project

1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die

The Cherry Orchard – Final Review

For Let’s Read Plays – other author theme of July, I have picked Anton Chekhov. Chekhov is actually more famous with his short stories; he is actually the father of short story writing in Europe. I have once read one of his short stories, and have caught his clear, sharp, and deep method of writing. And I thought it would be interesting to see whether his play was written in the same style. I picked The Cherry Orchard, in particular, as it is listed on my WEM self project. I have worked on the Act summaries, as well as the stage inquiries: the first and the second level.

The Cherry Orchard tells the story within the Ranevskys’ household. The famous cherry orchard itself located within the Ranevskys estate; and said to be one of the most beautiful places on earth. It might be exaggerated—as a cherry orchard should looks just as other cherry orchards—but it certainly kept the secrets and history of the family for many generations, which creates a special bound between the orchard and the residents; the cherry orchard looks beautiful because it bears many memorable events of the past. And now the Ravenskys must let their estate go, as it would be sold in an auction to pay their debts.

This play’s main conflicts lay on the cherry orchard’s sale, as each of the characters’ future would be depended on the sale. There are people who detest the idea; Lubov Andreyevna—the present owner—a widowed mother, who has been abroad for five years before finally returns to Russia. Lubov cannot think of leaving, as she would be like being cut off from her history by that. On the other hand, Lopakhin—a businessman, son of the estate’s old slave but later on was raised by the family—insists that the cherry orchard must be cut down, so that a villa can be built on it. Trofimov—a family teacher—is pleased with the idea of moving from the estate, and is excited to welcome the future together with Anya, Lubov’s daughter. While for Varya—Lubov’s adopted daughter—it would be a total ruin, as she would loose her job besides her home.

To read this play as only portraying what it performs, would be very deceiving. At first, you would think that the whole play is only the fuss around losing a family estate and moving away. But if you read between the lines, you would find Chekhov’s idea or critics on how Russians see the upcoming waves of change. At the time Chekhov wrote this, modernism was entering Russia, and the old values are struggling to survive (this play was first performed on 1904). Each character here stands for certain idea which reflects the contrast between people who are with modernism versus people who keep holding on the Old Russian values.

In the play, you’d see many incoherent dialogs or scenes within the Acts which makes the plot seems won’t go anywhere. Actually the first four Acts feels flat and overstretched, you would be asking yourself, what does Chekhov wanted to say, really? Just keep reading, because in Act Five Chekhov would change the gear, and the acceleration is suddenly increasing towards a climax. And lo! The ending would be very surprising, if not shocking. After the curtain has been down, you would sit still, struck, and couldn’t believe that the play has ended, and that ‘that’ would be the end! And then, you would reflect the whole play, of the pieces of incoherent dialogs and scenes, and suddenly, every piece would makes sense, as if the play is a huge puzzle game. By reflecting it, you would also see what Chekhov has wanted to tell you beneath the flat story. And finally, you would see the genius brain of the author who could present his ideas in this play!

Four and a half stars for The Cherry Orchard, as although I sometimes feel uncomfortable with the sudden changes in scenes or immediate incoherent interruption, the language is beautiful, and I love Chekhov’s detailed description of the background settings.

~~~~~~~~

*I read ebook version from Gutenberg Project*

*This book is counted as:*

Let’s Read Plays (July) theme: Other Author

49^th book for The Classics Club Project

Little Dorrit

Until now, Little Dorrit might have been the most struggling Dickens I have ever read. If you think it’s the thickness, no, it’s not a problem at all. It’s not the story either—although I did have several complaints I would have made to Dickens on it if he’s still alive. The most annoying aspect in this book for me is Dickens’ lengthy depiction around Circumlocution Office and the economics system, which reminds us of the infamous Ponzi scheme. I know, it’s mainly on those two subjects that Dickens wanted to criticize through Little Dorrit, but again, his tedious description and emphasize on those subjects really bored me to death.

Little Dorrit followed the story of the Dorrits in their two extreme conditions. In the first stint, they lived poorly in Marshalsea debt prison—Dickens wrote it from his own childhood experience. Amy Dorrit born and grew in this prison, and after her mother died, she must endure not only poverty, but most of all—especially for Mr. Dorrit the father—family’s humility. In this prison also, Amy befriended a young man, Arthur Clennam, whose kindness and attentive manner has stolen her heart. In the second stint, the Dorrits unexpectedly inherited a large sum of money, which altered their faith. Leaving the prison behind, they hastily entered the high society of London.

Beyond that, Dickens also took us to the chronicles of the Clennams, the Merdles, the Meagleses, the Gowans, Rigaud and Cavalletto, and of course the mysterious Miss Wade. Their stories intertwined with each others, and through them Dickens presented us with the dark themes of social injustice, hypocrisy, greedy, hatred and revenge; and showed us how love and kindness were the only way to happiness.

My first impression after finishing this book was how Mrs. Clennam reminded me of Miss Havisham, both with their eternal passion of vengeance against love infidelity, and both rotted in their darkness houses and hearts. And then I was thinking how vividly Dickens wrote about their hatreds, did he experience the same feeling himself? In the same likeness, Little Dorrit also reminds me of Little Nell in The Old Curiosity Shop. Both were tender, shy, grew in poverty—which forced them to bear a bigger responsibility than what girls at their age must bear. Both were full of love, and must take care of the elders, and both were called ‘Little’. I think this was much influenced by Dickens’ fondness of young, delicate and innocent girls.

From the plot I felt that, here and there, Dickens seemed to force things to suit each other. At first the story was quite boring, again, with long description of the Circumlocution Office—the satiric way Dickens criticized the unbearable bureaucracy; that even they seemed to always be busy, they in fact did not do anything but circling one task all over the office without ever gone out from it. Fortunately nearly the end, we were entertained with the mysteries surrounded the Clennams, which boost the plot a bit faster, although I felt it too faster this time. There were still few things I still didn’t get after finishing it.

First of all, what did really happen with the money Little Dorrit should inherit? Was the money still existed when Mrs. Clennam revealed the secret? Was it kept in Mrs. Clennam’s possession all the time? Or whether Mrs. Clennam had spent the money? But on what? Considering on how wretched her old house was, the fact that she could not afford to buy back the codicil from Rigaud/Blandois, and her high pride, it’s very unlikely that she did as low as using the money herself. And speaking about the house, don’t you think its ruining or blazing was a bit exaggerating? And, who was the “the poor thing that kept here secretly”, whose ghost haunted the house and whose “sounds” Affery used to hear?

And what about the oddness of how Mr. Gilbert Clennam—uncle of Mrs. Clennam’s husband—had made his will. After the woman with whom Arthur’s father had had adultery died, the money must be granted to her patron’s youngest daughter or the youngest daughter of the patron’s brother if the patron didn’t have any. Wasn’t the plot a bit forced, do you think? Why her patron? And most of all, why the youngest daughter? Well, it is supposed to be a tale anyway, but still….

I keep also wondering why Little Dorrit insisted upon burning the codicil. I think Arthur had the right to know who his mother was. Mrs. Clennam has died anyway, so Little Dorrit won’t hurt anyone—but Arthur—if she just let Arthur read the document. And I don’t think Arthur would have been much hurt by the secret, he might have been angry to Mrs. Clennam for deceiving him, but still...I would never agree on one’s hiding a truth from someone he/she loves. Or perhaps Little Dorrit was afraid that the legacy will make her rich and unhappy? But the one she burned was only the codicil, not the original legacy, isn’t it? Oh well….whatever, I’m confused.

Apart from those confusions, Little Dorrit brings us the true portrait of social and economics of London in 19^th century. From this book we came to know how the combination of careless investment and the corrupt government would do injustice to innocent people. Mr. Dorrit was imprisoned in Marshalsea after failing to pay his debt. He should have not stayed there for such a long time if the Circumlocution had done their works. Moreover, families of the prisoner suffered much from humility and banished from the society. Even after being released from it, the imprisonment itself left a dark trace in one’s life, as had happened to Mr. Dorrit.

In term of moral value, Little Dorrit taught us also that the real happiness does not come from wealth and status, but from love. Little Dorrit never looked at her poverty as a handicap; she always rich in love, and because of that, people loved her.

Three and a half stars for Little Dorrit, it’s not one of my favorites, but still….how can you don’t love Dickens’ witty and sweet story telling?

~~~~~~~

*I read the 1996 Wordsworth Classics paperback edition*

*This book is counted for*

4^th book for 2013 TBR Pile Challenge

2^nd book for Back To The Classics 2013

32^nd book for The Classics Club Project

1^st book for Read Big! Reading Challenge

3^rd book for What's In a Name Reading Challenge2013

The Scarlet Letter

In the Puritan society in New England, Hester Pryne committed adultery with a man whom she concealed the identity. For that, she must wear the scarlet letter of ‘A’ (symbolizing ‘Adultery’] embroidered on her bosom, and was expelled from the society together with her daughter Pearl. An old physician—who turned out to be her long missing husband and called himself Roger Chillingworth—promised Hester that he would take avenge to her lover. His suspicion was soon directed to a Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale, whom Chillingworth then took as his patient, to be able to ruin his soul.

This is a tale about sin and passion, beautifully written by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Although many times I got confused with his so many metaphors and magic realism symbols, I finally managed to grab most of the meanings in the end. Really worth the effort, because I have been enjoying reading this book right from the first sentence of the first chapter! Four stars for The Scarlet Letter; and these are my answers to the inquiries from my The Well Educated Mind Self-Project.

Grammar Stage Inquiry [What]

Which character is the most affected? How is that character affected by the book’s main event?

It’s all about Hester Pryne. It’s Hester Pryne’s battle to be repented from her sin: How a woman survived pressures from Puritan’s unfair system by bearing her humiliation; but in the end she proved that she cultivated much more than the hypocrite society by bearing her symbol of sin, in contrast with her companion of the crime—who faded away from the world after being mistakenly praised as holy and divine by the same society.

Logic Stage Inquiry [Why & How]

What does Hester Pryne want? What is standing in her way? What strategy does she pursue in order to overcome this block?

Hester wanted to be set free or repented from her sin. However, voluntarily wearing the scarlet letter and performing good deeds for the poor were not sufficient to change society’s view on her. As long as she wore the scarlet letter, people would always regard her only as an adulterer, a poor sinner, no less or no more than that. So, Hester kept bearing all the tortures in her in order to be stronger. Her little Pearl was also a big help for her to survive. Together they lived a humble life, never wanted more than the society permit them, but when the magistrates wanted to take Pearl from her, Hester did everything she could to keep Pearl.

Image and metaphor, is any particular image repeated again and again? What does this represent?

First, the contrast of gloomy prison door and the shining rosebush in front of it; the prison door represented the sin (dark patches in human’s soul), while the bright rosebush represented the fruits which culminated from the sin. From the seclusion from the society, Hester sprung out of her sin, being a much stronger than before, that enabled her to help others and performing many good deeds for the society. In other words, Hester’s sin had outshone the pureness that the Puritans were proud of themselves.

Second, the scarlet ‘A’ letter. It shone on Hester’s bosom, glowing even more in the dark; represented the sin that Hester honestly admitted glowed from the dark hypocrisy of Puritan society. Pearl’s particular interest in the scarlet letter (she even wrought the same letter from seaweed for herself) represented her self as the fruit of the adultery, who at the end could have a happier life outside New England.

The scarlet letter appeared as stigmata in Dimmesdale’s chest to represent that once you commit a sin, it would stay there as long as you permit it. You have the choice whether to admit it or to hide it behind your hypocrisy, it’s all the same, you are a sinner.

The letter ‘A’ represented how people used to see things as they wanted to see. When a letter ‘A’ appeared on the horizon, Dimmesdale took it as the sign of what he feared the most: that his sin was to be revealed. However, people saw it as ‘Angel’ because a worthy Governor died at the same hour, and they imagined angels came to pick him up. On the other hand, several people who regarded Hester’s willing hands to help people in needs, assumed the ‘A’ on her bosom has changed to ‘Able’.

Rhetorical Stage Inquiry [So What]

What does the setting of the book tell you about the way human beings are shaped?

I don’t know much about Puritan, but from this book I think Puritan only made people look ‘pure’ on the outside, but not in the inside. They created strict laws, dull lifestyle, they prevented the society to have pleasures. They praised their magistrates and church authorities, they were touched by any beautifully-performed sermons, but they forgot to bear in mind the real essence of them. You were regarded highly in the society only if you were ‘pure’, there’s no place for wrong doing, because once you committed it, you were banished from the society. The pressures were so high that I think they were far away from being happy, and made them hypocrites.

What exactly is the writer telling you?

That humanity lies not on the right or wrong, holy or sinful, but on our decisions and principles, on what we do and what we think. People do make mistakes, but it’s not on the size of the mistake that we should judge others, but by what they do from that. Remarkable things might come from sinful personages, amazing yet true, just as the rosemary bushes could culminate from the death soil in front of the old prison door….

Do you agree? Is this work true? In what sense is the book true?

Although Hawthorne picked Puritan era as the setting, the conflicts were still relevant to today’s life, so I can say positively that this work is true. I have created a diagram of Hester vs Dimmesdale, in term of how they made up with their sins, and from that I could see that life is not black or white, but we grow up from mistakes and sins; that if we are brave and strong, we can change our dark past to a fruitful future, not only for ourselves, but also for the world. Just as Hester Pryne had done.  

Germinal

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

Germinal adalah buku ketiga belas dari dua puluh novel dalam seri Rougon-Macquart karya Émile Zola. Bersetting di kota daerah pertambangan di Prancis pada akhir abad ke 19, di mana industri sedang mengalami kelesuan. Yang paling merasakan dampaknya (seperti biasa) adalah para pekerja pertambangan yang setiap hari harus bekerja keras di lubang-lubang kecil ratusan meter di bawah permukaan tanah untuk menambang batu bara; dengan resiko kehilangan nyawa setiap saat, demi mendapatkan upah yang sangat minim untuk sekedar dapat melanjutkan hidup dari hari ke hari.

Étienne Lantier tiba di distrik Montsou, pengangguran yang sedang mencari pekerjaan untuk menyambung hidup. Ia tiba di pertambangan Voureux, berkenalan dengan keluarga penambang bernama Maheu, yang kebetulan sedang membutuhkan seorang pekerja. Jadilah Étienne si pendatang baru dari kota lain, seorang pria muda yang lumayan tampan, suka membaca dan berpendidikan, menjadi salah satu penambang di situ. Lewat mata Étienne kita diajak melihat betapa kerasnya pekerjaan mereka, betapa penuh bahaya, dan betapa tidak manusiawinya perusahaan pertambangan itu memperkerjakan mereka.

Kemiskinan dapat terlihat di mana-mana, yang akhirnya menjalar pada kemerosotan moral keluarga penambang. Dengan upah yang pas-pasan mereka mempertaruhkan nyawa, dan seringkali karena kesalahan kecil mereka, upah yang sedikit itupun harus dipotong. Étienne mulai merasakan ketidakadilan di sana, dan mulai timbul dorongan untuk membuat perubahan. Ia mulai belajar dari beberapa buku, termasuk dari pelopor serikat buruh yang memperjuangan nasib pekerja di Paris. Bisa ditebak, Étienne mulai mempengaruhi para penambang dengan ide-ide perlawanan terhadap perusahaan untuk mendapatkan hak mereka. Sedikit demi sedikit, lewat rapat-rapat dan orasi-orasi, Étienne mengumpulkan partisan.

Kemudian momentum itu tiba, perusahaan memberlakukan peraturan baru, yang pada akhirnya menurunkan upah yang mereka terima. Upah yang sudah tak cukup itu harus kembali dikurangi. Maka mendidihlah kemarahan mereka, dan dengan segera mereka memutuskan untuk mengadakan demonstrasi dengan Étienne sebagai pemimpin mereka. Demonstrasi ini segera menyebar hingga hampir seluruh pertambangan harus berhenti berproduksi. Akankah mereka berhasil mencapai tujuan mereka, agar perusahaan makin memperhatikan kesejahteraan mereka, sementara perusahaan dan pemegang saham pun terkena imbas kelesuan dunia industri? Akankah yang lemah akhirnya menang?

Meski tampaknya novel ini dipenuhi ide-ide sosialisme, namun Zola berhasil meramunya dengan cantik. Selain Étienne, ada keluarga Maheu yang menjadi pusat cerita, belum lagi para penghuni kompleks pertambangan itu. Di sini kita seolah menyaksikan sendiri suka-duka mereka semua, bukan hanya soal pekerjaan, namun juga tentang cinta, keluarga, dendam, harapan, amarah, dan semua kompleksitas yang terajut dalam benang kehidupan manusia, dengan kemiskinan sebagai awal dari segalanya. Lewat Germinal kita bisa menyadari bagaimana kebejatan, nafsu membunuh dan kriminalitas biasanya bermula dari kemiskinan dan ketidakadilan. Sementara kita mengutuk tindak anarkisme dalam sebuah demonstrasi, lewat Germinal paling tidak kita tahu bagaimana kemarahan yang lama terpendam, dari generasi ke generasi, akan meledak hebat pada suatu saat, bak gunung berapi yang telah bertahun-tahun tidur, padahal selama itu sedang menggodok magma di perutnya, untuk suatu saat memuntahkannya dengan penuh kekuatan. Salahkah mereka? Atau siapakah yang sebenarnya bersalah?

Germinal menggabungkan ide Darwinisme (yang kuat akan memakan yang lemah) dengan sosialisme, menghentak dalam penggambaran dashyatnya kekuatan ‘yang lemah’ ketika mereka menggalang persatuan, serta dahsyatnya kemiskinan dalam merenggut hidup manusia. Kekuatan itu lalu dilembutkan Zola dengan metafora-metafora cantik, juga kisah cinta yang menyesakkan dada dalam thriller drama penyelematan di area tambang. Dan gabungan dari semuanya membuat Germinal sebuah kisah yang selalu relevan hingga kapanpun, bagi siapapun. Tak heran Germinal masuk (dan ia lebih dari layak untuk masuk kategori ini) dalam 1001 Books To Read Before You Die di urutan ke-824, karena memang, entah kapan, anda HARUS membaca buku yang dahsyat ini sebelum anda mati!

Lima bintang untuk Germinal!

Judul: Germinal [in English]

Penulis: Émile Zola

Penerbit: Wordsworth Classics

Terbit: 2007

Tebal: 478 p.

Conclusion:

Germinal is my third book of Zola, and I can say that it already becomes one of my favorites. Germinal is not only a story about the classic fight between workers and company, the poor and the have, it is also about the agony of poor working class. Germinal was written from Étienne Lantier’s (Gervaise’ son in L’Assommoir) point of view. He was an engine man came to a coal mining town Montsou to find a job. From his eyes, Zola took us to watch the sorrows of coal miners who worked hard under poor conditions for very small wages which could hardly support their poor lives. And for generations this condition has never changed; and they seemed to just accept it; to be overpowered by the bourgeoisie and the industrial machines called capitalism.

“No matter how hard we might struggle, we probably wouldn’t change anything. The best is to try and live honestly in the place in which the good God has put us.” ~Maheude, p. 86

Until Étienne—a quite educated young man—appeared from nowhere, mingled with the settlemen, and little by little affected their way of thinking. They soon put him into their lead, with a dream to dethrone the wealth and to regain their freedom and rights. The question was, what was the best method to carry it; anarchism? Long term evolution? Or strikes?

Germinal was a combination of humanity, Darwinism and socialism, packed beautifully with metaphors and romance. This is the third Zola’s I’ve read so far, and compared to Therese Raquin and L’Assommoir (sorry, the reviews are still in Bahasa Indonesia). Germinal was less distressing and less striking. Yes, Zola still described poverty, hunger and moral degradation brutally to the most extremes, yet he still slipped a hope, a bigger hope for a better future in the end. Germinal was only the beginning, the seeds sowing of workers’ battle against the oppression of capitalism. Germinal would show the world that there is a possibility for the weak to fight the strong. It only took time and refinement, and one day the seeds that were now germinating would harvest perfectly and change the earth.

What interested me the most is the metaphors Zola used throughout this story. First of all, the way he described the surroundings in the mine from the eyes of the newcomer Étienne. Zola often used the terms of animal’s digestion in describing the mine pit.

“And the Voureux, at the bottom of its hole, in contractions those of an evil beast, continued to grind away, breathing with a heavier and slower respiration, appearing troubled by its painful digestion of human flesh.”

 “The shaft swallowed men by mouthfuls of twenty or thirty, and with so easy a gulp that it seemed not to feel them go down.”

I only think, that it is the way Zola described capitalism which swallowed people and crushed them in poverty just like a monster digested human flesh; and what a beautiful metaphor they are indeed!

Zola also closed the story in a very beautiful and touching way. The rescue drama in the tumbling pit near the end of the story was really breathtaking, but approaching the end it was also warming my heart with love. And the final ending was superb! I love the final quote which brought a new hope for a better future, and look how Zola crafted it with nature’s elements of a new spring for the world, the most beautiful metaphor from this book.

Five stars (obviously) for Germinal, which have just become my new favorite!