by Leo Tolstoy
1877
translated by Louise & Aylmer Maude
Stiva Oblonsky, an affable and slightly clueless aristocrat, has been caught cheating by his wife Dolly, and brings in his urbane married sister Anna to reconcile them. She does, but falls in love with Vronsky, a dashing roué of a military man who is courting Dolly’s younger sister Kitty. They begin a tumultuous affair, hindered by Anna’s somewhat cold, reputation-conscious husband, but the illegitimacy of their relationship causes unhappiness. Meanwhile, Levin, a socially awkward intellectual and landowner, who is a sort of angry young man with sympathy for the working class, is also courting Kitty; when rebuffed by her, he withdraws but never forgets her. That’s a very brief synopsis of the three main plotlines in this epic novel (nearly twice the length of Moby Dick).
As the story of a troubled marriage caused by cheating, an unhappy affair, and a happy, devoted marriage, this novel is taken up by many as a moralistic cautionary tale. The polarization of the insecure but careful Levin, burning with intense but noble and innocent passion, with Anna, who is swayed by her passions without thinking of the obvious consequences, makes up the main characterization of the novel. But Tolstoy is more subtle than this simple dichotomy. There are no perfect beings in this book, there is no absolute right or wrong; it’s the practical (or impractical) decisions that people make which make them happy or unhappy, not their “inner characters.” At times, the reader sympathizes deeply with the unhappy Anna, despite the fact that her troubles are of her own making; and he continues to present Oblonsky as a sympathetic fellow, even as he puzzles over why his wife should be so upset over his philandering. Tolstoy shows that he understands human motive; whether you judge it right or wrong isn’t as important as that you know why they act as they do. This is also a novel of manners, in a way, though there are some truly profound passages in Anna Karenina that explore the fundamental questions of life. As the characters struggle with their own existentialist crises – the acceptance of society vs. following your heart, materialism vs. faith, raising up the working class vs. realizing that many of them don’t want to work hard or raise their station – how they handle those crises is what elevates them to happiness or bleak despair. Although it’s an engrossing and intelligent novel, I don’t rank it as one of my favorites. I was annoyed at times, as I can be with these stuffy characters from another era, at their infantile waffling or stubbornness. For example, Levin’s jealousy is adolescent and totally baseless, yet it consumes him at times. Anna’s insistence on going out in society, when Vronsky and all logic insist that this would be a very foolish thing to do, is baffling from a modern standpoint. And I was plain bored during some passages, such as a long tedious hunting excursion Levin goes on which doesn’t seem to have much to do with some of the grander questions he deals with. On the whole, this is a very fine novel, but to me not a Great Novel.
four stars
Showing posts with label 1800s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1800s. Show all posts
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
Oliver Twist
by Charles Dickens
1839
The famous tale of the titular orphan, born to a mother of uncertain origin but assumed to be low-born, who grows up mistreated and half-starved in the workhouses of the time. He is apprenticed out to a coffin-maker, where the contempt and bullying he undergoes impels him to flee to London. There, he is taken in by master criminal Fagin, who trains streets urchins to be pickpockets to enrich his own coffers. Fleeing Fagin and the harsh, brutal house-breaker Sikes, he is taken in by a gentleman and then a young lady in succession, where his lot improves, but the mystery of his parentage, and how he figures into the nefarious plans of Fagin, Sikes, and the mysterious man Monks, remain to be realized.
This novel is of course widely regarded as a classic, and though I don’t believe it to be of the same quality as Great Expectations, it’s not hard to see why it has endured: the villains of the story are vivid, fully realized, horrifying at times, and almost noble in their way at others. Dickens set out to present an honest account of vice with this novel, and he certainly succeeded: his willingness to give motives, fears, and conscience to the villains, rather than simply making them cartoonishly evil, is fairly modern. (Fagin is an absurd anti-Semitic stereotype, but I overlook that as a reflection of Dickens' time and place.) The novel also succeeds as social satire; especially at the beginning, with its descriptions of 19th century England’s treatment of the poor, he comes off as sharp, angry, and as full of black, biting wit as Twain or Swift. The book has its flaws, however. Despite his upbringing, young Twist himself is nearly a cipher, cartoonishly beatific and good; his personality borders on mawkishness, even sanctimoniousness. The same can be said for Miss Rose, the lady who takes him in, which makes them uninteresting as well as unrealistic. It’s no accident that Fagin and the Artful Dodger are as well-known to the general public as the titular hero himself. Finally, Dickens’ social satire is rather cut off at the knees due to his decision to make Twist the son of a gentleman, as if actual lower-class paupers don’t deserve happy endings and decent treatment. It’s a terrific story in its essence, though, with rich characters, suspense, and broad humor, as well as a righteous social satire and invective against hypocritical power mongers.
four stars
1839
The famous tale of the titular orphan, born to a mother of uncertain origin but assumed to be low-born, who grows up mistreated and half-starved in the workhouses of the time. He is apprenticed out to a coffin-maker, where the contempt and bullying he undergoes impels him to flee to London. There, he is taken in by master criminal Fagin, who trains streets urchins to be pickpockets to enrich his own coffers. Fleeing Fagin and the harsh, brutal house-breaker Sikes, he is taken in by a gentleman and then a young lady in succession, where his lot improves, but the mystery of his parentage, and how he figures into the nefarious plans of Fagin, Sikes, and the mysterious man Monks, remain to be realized.
This novel is of course widely regarded as a classic, and though I don’t believe it to be of the same quality as Great Expectations, it’s not hard to see why it has endured: the villains of the story are vivid, fully realized, horrifying at times, and almost noble in their way at others. Dickens set out to present an honest account of vice with this novel, and he certainly succeeded: his willingness to give motives, fears, and conscience to the villains, rather than simply making them cartoonishly evil, is fairly modern. (Fagin is an absurd anti-Semitic stereotype, but I overlook that as a reflection of Dickens' time and place.) The novel also succeeds as social satire; especially at the beginning, with its descriptions of 19th century England’s treatment of the poor, he comes off as sharp, angry, and as full of black, biting wit as Twain or Swift. The book has its flaws, however. Despite his upbringing, young Twist himself is nearly a cipher, cartoonishly beatific and good; his personality borders on mawkishness, even sanctimoniousness. The same can be said for Miss Rose, the lady who takes him in, which makes them uninteresting as well as unrealistic. It’s no accident that Fagin and the Artful Dodger are as well-known to the general public as the titular hero himself. Finally, Dickens’ social satire is rather cut off at the knees due to his decision to make Twist the son of a gentleman, as if actual lower-class paupers don’t deserve happy endings and decent treatment. It’s a terrific story in its essence, though, with rich characters, suspense, and broad humor, as well as a righteous social satire and invective against hypocritical power mongers.
four stars
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Dead Souls
by Nikolai Gogol
1842
translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volohonsky
A likeable middle aged petty official, Chichikov, comes to the village of N. and starts buying up dead muzhiks from various landowners. The idea is to transfer ownership of the titular dead souls (in the sense of persons, not actual souls) to Chichikov while they’re still listed as living for tax purposes, until the end of the year. Then Chichikov will own these serfs, on paper, and presumably be able to use them as property to stake out a loan and become a large landowner himself.
It’s a remarkably funny book; the landowners are sharp parodies, marked by greed or ignorance or self-inflation. Because of the townsfolk’s tendency to gossip and worship the veneer of respectability and wealth, Chichikov is treated like a prince amongst the petty officials, and a celebration is thrown in his honor. Very suddenly however, rumors flare up that the serfs he bought are all dead, and that he was planning on eloping with the Governor's daughter. In the confusion that ensues, the backwardness of the irrational, gossip-hungry townspeople is most delicately conveyed. Absurd suggestions come to light, such as the possibility that Chichikov is Napoleon in disguise or the notorious and retired 'Captain Kopeikin,' who had lost an arm and a leg during a war. The now disgraced traveler is immediately ostracized from the company he had been enjoying and has no choice but to flee the town in disgrace. There is a second book, but much truncated, unfinished, and not nearly as funny as the first. This edition is fine for Gogol scholars, but for those who just wish to enjoy this “poem novel” should stop at the first book.
four stars
1842
translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volohonsky
A likeable middle aged petty official, Chichikov, comes to the village of N. and starts buying up dead muzhiks from various landowners. The idea is to transfer ownership of the titular dead souls (in the sense of persons, not actual souls) to Chichikov while they’re still listed as living for tax purposes, until the end of the year. Then Chichikov will own these serfs, on paper, and presumably be able to use them as property to stake out a loan and become a large landowner himself.
It’s a remarkably funny book; the landowners are sharp parodies, marked by greed or ignorance or self-inflation. Because of the townsfolk’s tendency to gossip and worship the veneer of respectability and wealth, Chichikov is treated like a prince amongst the petty officials, and a celebration is thrown in his honor. Very suddenly however, rumors flare up that the serfs he bought are all dead, and that he was planning on eloping with the Governor's daughter. In the confusion that ensues, the backwardness of the irrational, gossip-hungry townspeople is most delicately conveyed. Absurd suggestions come to light, such as the possibility that Chichikov is Napoleon in disguise or the notorious and retired 'Captain Kopeikin,' who had lost an arm and a leg during a war. The now disgraced traveler is immediately ostracized from the company he had been enjoying and has no choice but to flee the town in disgrace. There is a second book, but much truncated, unfinished, and not nearly as funny as the first. This edition is fine for Gogol scholars, but for those who just wish to enjoy this “poem novel” should stop at the first book.
four stars
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Little Women
by Louisa May Alcott
1869
The last time I read this was probably 26 or so years ago. Being on a children’s literature kick lately, I thought I ought to revisit this 450-page “girls’ book.” The plot is linear, episodic, and simple. The four March sisters grow up to embrace their less exalted positions in the world and find happiness in the simple pleasures of family and home.
I can’t deny the lasting appeal of Alcott’s characters, especially the literate and introspective Jo (based on the author herself); and I enjoyed the depiction of the sisters growing up alongside their boy neighbor. But I had forgotten or possibly never realized how didactic, priggish, and tedious this book is, its primary purpose apparently being to moralize to young girls. The book’s a product of its time, of course, and I have no problem with moral lessons in literature as a general rule. But I do object to being moralized at directly by the narrator and to being told rather than shown the conclusions I as a reader must draw. Of course, I’m a thirty-something-year-old man in the 21st century, and the book was written for young girls in 1870. Still, so was Alice in Wonderland, and that’s timeless. This book, not so much. It also features some of the most nauseating fake children’s speech ever (“Opy doy, me’s tummin!”).
[read twice]
three stars
1869
The last time I read this was probably 26 or so years ago. Being on a children’s literature kick lately, I thought I ought to revisit this 450-page “girls’ book.” The plot is linear, episodic, and simple. The four March sisters grow up to embrace their less exalted positions in the world and find happiness in the simple pleasures of family and home.
I can’t deny the lasting appeal of Alcott’s characters, especially the literate and introspective Jo (based on the author herself); and I enjoyed the depiction of the sisters growing up alongside their boy neighbor. But I had forgotten or possibly never realized how didactic, priggish, and tedious this book is, its primary purpose apparently being to moralize to young girls. The book’s a product of its time, of course, and I have no problem with moral lessons in literature as a general rule. But I do object to being moralized at directly by the narrator and to being told rather than shown the conclusions I as a reader must draw. Of course, I’m a thirty-something-year-old man in the 21st century, and the book was written for young girls in 1870. Still, so was Alice in Wonderland, and that’s timeless. This book, not so much. It also features some of the most nauseating fake children’s speech ever (“Opy doy, me’s tummin!”).
[read twice]
three stars
Monday, June 25, 2007
Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There
by Lewis Carroll
Alice walks through a mirror and meets Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the White Knight, Humpty Dumpty, and the others in a vast game of chess. She goes across the field and becomes a queen at the end. This volume is just as funny, madcap and memorable as Alice in Wonderland. I liked the reappearance of the Mad Hatter and the March Hare, now under the names Hatta and Haigha. It seems clear to me that the White Knight (who is probably the funniest character) is supposed to be Carroll himself, with his “gentle, kind eyes” and distracted, thoughtful air. But nearly every section has something incredibly clever, or absurdly inventive. And John Tenniel’s illustrations are unsurpassable.
[read twice]
five stars
Alice walks through a mirror and meets Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the White Knight, Humpty Dumpty, and the others in a vast game of chess. She goes across the field and becomes a queen at the end. This volume is just as funny, madcap and memorable as Alice in Wonderland. I liked the reappearance of the Mad Hatter and the March Hare, now under the names Hatta and Haigha. It seems clear to me that the White Knight (who is probably the funniest character) is supposed to be Carroll himself, with his “gentle, kind eyes” and distracted, thoughtful air. But nearly every section has something incredibly clever, or absurdly inventive. And John Tenniel’s illustrations are unsurpassable.
[read twice]
five stars
Friday, June 22, 2007
Alice In Wonderland
by Lewis Carroll
1865
Alice falls asleep on a river bank, goes down a rabbit hole, and it’s all nonsense from then on. Truly one of the most inventive and wonderfully, amusingly absurd books in the English language, a delight to adults as well as bright children. The poems are a high point, including “You Are Old, Father William” and “’Tis the Voice Of the Lobster.” Of course, the wordplay (who knew shoes under the sea are made of soles and eels?) and bizarre characters are what keeps this book in the collective consciousness. I especially enjoyed the Kafka-on-Prozac trial of the Knave of Hearts at the end.
[read twice]
five stars
[followed by Through the Looking-Glass]
1865
Alice falls asleep on a river bank, goes down a rabbit hole, and it’s all nonsense from then on. Truly one of the most inventive and wonderfully, amusingly absurd books in the English language, a delight to adults as well as bright children. The poems are a high point, including “You Are Old, Father William” and “’Tis the Voice Of the Lobster.” Of course, the wordplay (who knew shoes under the sea are made of soles and eels?) and bizarre characters are what keeps this book in the collective consciousness. I especially enjoyed the Kafka-on-Prozac trial of the Knave of Hearts at the end.
[read twice]
five stars
[followed by Through the Looking-Glass]
Saturday, January 20, 2007
Moby-Dick
by Herman Melville
1851
Having never read this classic but knowing a bit about it, I think I was expecting a dry, meandering discourse. But what this book is, is possibly the finest American novel. Seriously, I never believed that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn had a rival for the title of Great American Novel, but this just might be it. It has its share of meandering discourse, but also unexpected humor, both high and low; sheer drama; poetry; amusingly dated amateur scientific investigations; tragedy; and, of course, what may be the greatest character in American literature, Ahab.
Ahab is a masterpiece; he’s a compressed ball of madness and drive powered by a monstrous will to power, but Melville tempers his character with flashes of humanity and compassion, flashes which are driven back by Ahab’s overriding thirst for vengeance. While the entire opus has some of the most eloquent prose this side of Shakespeare – no kidding – it’s Ahab who gets the really good lines. “Ye see an old man cut down to the stump; leaning on a shivered lance; propped up on a lonely foot. 'Tis Ahab – his body's part; but Ahab's soul's a centipede, that moves upon a hundred legs. I feel strained, half stranded, as ropes that tow dismasted frigates in a gale; and I may look so. But ere I break, ye'll hear me crack; and till ye hear that, know that Ahab's hawser tows his purpose yet.” This is, quite simply, a mind-altering masterpiece.
five stars
1851
Having never read this classic but knowing a bit about it, I think I was expecting a dry, meandering discourse. But what this book is, is possibly the finest American novel. Seriously, I never believed that The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn had a rival for the title of Great American Novel, but this just might be it. It has its share of meandering discourse, but also unexpected humor, both high and low; sheer drama; poetry; amusingly dated amateur scientific investigations; tragedy; and, of course, what may be the greatest character in American literature, Ahab.
Ahab is a masterpiece; he’s a compressed ball of madness and drive powered by a monstrous will to power, but Melville tempers his character with flashes of humanity and compassion, flashes which are driven back by Ahab’s overriding thirst for vengeance. While the entire opus has some of the most eloquent prose this side of Shakespeare – no kidding – it’s Ahab who gets the really good lines. “Ye see an old man cut down to the stump; leaning on a shivered lance; propped up on a lonely foot. 'Tis Ahab – his body's part; but Ahab's soul's a centipede, that moves upon a hundred legs. I feel strained, half stranded, as ropes that tow dismasted frigates in a gale; and I may look so. But ere I break, ye'll hear me crack; and till ye hear that, know that Ahab's hawser tows his purpose yet.” This is, quite simply, a mind-altering masterpiece.
five stars
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
Pride And Prejudice
by Jane Austen
1813
In early 19th century England, a family of five girls is marked for marriage by their rather silly mother, Mrs. Bennet. More than one suitor comes calling; Elizabeth, the second oldest, is courted by the wealthy and arrogant Mr. Darcy, but she finds him insupportable. Will his snooty relatives crush her sister’s chance of marrying their friend Mr. Bingley? Will the foolish youngest sister, Lydia, lead them into ruin with her wanton ways? Will Elizabeth never find happiness with Darcy? The answers, of course, are obviously negative – but this delicate, intricate novel kept me turning the pages (all 375 of them) eagerly. Written with a superb verbal dexterity, laced with rich and subtle wit, this novel is truly a classic.
five stars
1813
In early 19th century England, a family of five girls is marked for marriage by their rather silly mother, Mrs. Bennet. More than one suitor comes calling; Elizabeth, the second oldest, is courted by the wealthy and arrogant Mr. Darcy, but she finds him insupportable. Will his snooty relatives crush her sister’s chance of marrying their friend Mr. Bingley? Will the foolish youngest sister, Lydia, lead them into ruin with her wanton ways? Will Elizabeth never find happiness with Darcy? The answers, of course, are obviously negative – but this delicate, intricate novel kept me turning the pages (all 375 of them) eagerly. Written with a superb verbal dexterity, laced with rich and subtle wit, this novel is truly a classic.
five stars
Monday, March 15, 1999
Uncle Tom's Cabin
by Harriet Beecher Stowe
1852
With an Afterword by John William Ward. A once wealthy man is forced to sell his beloved slave, Uncle Tom, to get out of debt. And a female slave escapes with her small child, joining her impetuous, proud husband George in flight. And from there the two plot points continue and diverge in an episodic fashion, and we meet a whole host of characters, including the benevolent, effeminate St. Clare and the brutish Simon Legree.
There are some very stunning passages in the book, some powerful, impassioned arguments. The characters are varied and interesting (cruel whites, cruel blacks, noble whites, noble blacks, capable women, cruel women, incapable women), except perhaps the appallingly mawkish little Eva, a Christ figure (Tom is also a Christ figure, but his behavior seems more likely). But there is also a lot of tiresome preaching, which I suppose is to be expected, as is the dated race theories and chuckleheaded antics of some of the black characters. I also think the story probably got a bit out of Stowe’s hands at 465 pages (!). All in all, though the story is more often than not compelling, it’s a bit too preachy and awkward. One detail --- odd that “Uncle Tom” should have come to mean a servile black man, when Tom is a strong-willed, noble man who simply refuses to do evil, even if it means he’s to be tortured to death. He’s servile because he accepts his lot, but he certainly makes his own decisions in life. The Afterword argues that the book should be read nowadays because its central argument is that people cannot be moral in an immoral world; all societies corrupt, and the only noble souls are those removed from society, like Quakers, Christian slaves, and children.
three stars
1852
With an Afterword by John William Ward. A once wealthy man is forced to sell his beloved slave, Uncle Tom, to get out of debt. And a female slave escapes with her small child, joining her impetuous, proud husband George in flight. And from there the two plot points continue and diverge in an episodic fashion, and we meet a whole host of characters, including the benevolent, effeminate St. Clare and the brutish Simon Legree.
There are some very stunning passages in the book, some powerful, impassioned arguments. The characters are varied and interesting (cruel whites, cruel blacks, noble whites, noble blacks, capable women, cruel women, incapable women), except perhaps the appallingly mawkish little Eva, a Christ figure (Tom is also a Christ figure, but his behavior seems more likely). But there is also a lot of tiresome preaching, which I suppose is to be expected, as is the dated race theories and chuckleheaded antics of some of the black characters. I also think the story probably got a bit out of Stowe’s hands at 465 pages (!). All in all, though the story is more often than not compelling, it’s a bit too preachy and awkward. One detail --- odd that “Uncle Tom” should have come to mean a servile black man, when Tom is a strong-willed, noble man who simply refuses to do evil, even if it means he’s to be tortured to death. He’s servile because he accepts his lot, but he certainly makes his own decisions in life. The Afterword argues that the book should be read nowadays because its central argument is that people cannot be moral in an immoral world; all societies corrupt, and the only noble souls are those removed from society, like Quakers, Christian slaves, and children.
three stars
Tuesday, October 17, 1995
Crime And Punishment
by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
1866
translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky
This edition is hailed as the best translation ever, and the two have done many other Dostoevsky works. There was also a very perspicuous introduction by Pevear which analyzed some of the more vague passages, and the whole was annotated, all of which helped my understanding immensely. Just one minor example: knowing that Raskolnikov is named after "raskolnik," meaning schismatic, sheds quite a bit of light of Dostoevsky's intention in laying out his character. I would have to say that the novel is one of the best I've ever read. I began it many months ago, with long breaks between beginning and finishing it, which is probably not the best way to read such a complex book, but there it is. The novel has at least three plots and many levels of meaning. It doesn't just deal with a murder and a detective's psychological intimidation of Raskolnikov: Dostoevsky's characters offer opinions on the issues of the day, they embrace ideologies that were in vogue at the time, parodying them simply by the nature of their own personas; there are romances; other deaths; two methodical, selfish villains; symbolism through dream and vision; and so on. The author laughs at reason, nature and law. Reason fails Raskolnikov and doesn't help Porfiry, the detective. Everyone makes his own plan, carves out his own existence and scoffs at precedent. This existentialism is not certain; it helps Porfiry, but fails Raskolnikov, and drives Svidrigailov, the lecher who attempts to conquer Roskolnikov's sister, to suicide. A great, towering, multi-layered book, one that I will have to read again in the future.
five stars
1866
translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky
This edition is hailed as the best translation ever, and the two have done many other Dostoevsky works. There was also a very perspicuous introduction by Pevear which analyzed some of the more vague passages, and the whole was annotated, all of which helped my understanding immensely. Just one minor example: knowing that Raskolnikov is named after "raskolnik," meaning schismatic, sheds quite a bit of light of Dostoevsky's intention in laying out his character. I would have to say that the novel is one of the best I've ever read. I began it many months ago, with long breaks between beginning and finishing it, which is probably not the best way to read such a complex book, but there it is. The novel has at least three plots and many levels of meaning. It doesn't just deal with a murder and a detective's psychological intimidation of Raskolnikov: Dostoevsky's characters offer opinions on the issues of the day, they embrace ideologies that were in vogue at the time, parodying them simply by the nature of their own personas; there are romances; other deaths; two methodical, selfish villains; symbolism through dream and vision; and so on. The author laughs at reason, nature and law. Reason fails Raskolnikov and doesn't help Porfiry, the detective. Everyone makes his own plan, carves out his own existence and scoffs at precedent. This existentialism is not certain; it helps Porfiry, but fails Raskolnikov, and drives Svidrigailov, the lecher who attempts to conquer Roskolnikov's sister, to suicide. A great, towering, multi-layered book, one that I will have to read again in the future.
five stars
Sunday, March 6, 1994
Three Men In a Boat
by Jerome K. Jerome
1889
Three rather lackadaisical friends decide to take a boat trip down the Thames, only to run into some rather amusing adventures. I liked this book quite a bit. It started out incredibly funny, a laugh a line, then became anecdotal, only slightly interesting to me. When Jerome started adding in history factoids, seemingly just to show off, it got tiresome. And he didn't follow up on the characters he established at the beginning, just linked one story to another. However, though it bordered on boring at times, the humor and stylish tone lasted. The high-minded yet clueless tone of the narrator clearly influenced P.G. Wodehouse's Bertie.
four stars
1889
Three rather lackadaisical friends decide to take a boat trip down the Thames, only to run into some rather amusing adventures. I liked this book quite a bit. It started out incredibly funny, a laugh a line, then became anecdotal, only slightly interesting to me. When Jerome started adding in history factoids, seemingly just to show off, it got tiresome. And he didn't follow up on the characters he established at the beginning, just linked one story to another. However, though it bordered on boring at times, the humor and stylish tone lasted. The high-minded yet clueless tone of the narrator clearly influenced P.G. Wodehouse's Bertie.
four stars
Sunday, September 12, 1993
The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
by Robert Louis Stevenson
1886
The scientist Jekyll wants to see if the "bad" side of man can be isolated, but doesn't realize the consequences for him when he succeeds. Told in multiple narratives, it's a well-written, engrossing story of man's pride and fall.
Includes the intriguing story "The Suicide Club;" it too was well-written and engrossing, a continuous story in three parts, but each part was a short tale in itself. The faux retelling, as if from an Arabic story, was a great touch. The second part had the blackest humor. The eloquence of the characters was compelling; the language as a whole, far from being antiquated, was charming. Great.
1886
The scientist Jekyll wants to see if the "bad" side of man can be isolated, but doesn't realize the consequences for him when he succeeds. Told in multiple narratives, it's a well-written, engrossing story of man's pride and fall.
Includes the intriguing story "The Suicide Club;" it too was well-written and engrossing, a continuous story in three parts, but each part was a short tale in itself. The faux retelling, as if from an Arabic story, was a great touch. The second part had the blackest humor. The eloquence of the characters was compelling; the language as a whole, far from being antiquated, was charming. Great.
Friday, September 10, 1993
A Hero Of Our Time
by Mikhail Lermontov
1839
translated by Paul Foote
A collection of previously published stories about Pechorin, a Russian officer, who turns out to be hardly a hero. Said to be the first Russian psychological novel. In my opinion, the author himself was more interesting (he wrote this – his sole novel – between the ages of 21-25, killed in a duel over a trivial insult at 26) than his book, which had awkward, obviously translated phrases (something I have an automatic eye for these days), way too much purple prose and little action/poignancy. On the other hand, when there was interaction and emotion between the characters, it was excellent. All in all, fairly good. I liked "Princess Mary" and "The Fatalist" best.
three stars
1839
translated by Paul Foote
A collection of previously published stories about Pechorin, a Russian officer, who turns out to be hardly a hero. Said to be the first Russian psychological novel. In my opinion, the author himself was more interesting (he wrote this – his sole novel – between the ages of 21-25, killed in a duel over a trivial insult at 26) than his book, which had awkward, obviously translated phrases (something I have an automatic eye for these days), way too much purple prose and little action/poignancy. On the other hand, when there was interaction and emotion between the characters, it was excellent. All in all, fairly good. I liked "Princess Mary" and "The Fatalist" best.
three stars
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)