Monday, June 14, 2010

The Yiddish Policeman's Union by Michael Chabon

Michael Chabon, author of my beloved Kavalier and Clay, the book which was totally on sale at a huge book fair this weekend and was taken right from beneath my nose so I STILL DON'T OWN A COPY OF IT GURGGHHH. Anyway, I happened to see this book at the local library and I was all, oh hey, loved your other book, hook me up.


Well, it's set in Sitka (Shiksa?), Alaska which was apparently colonized by Jews as a safe haven after/during the Holocaust and after Israel's collapse... but Alaska wants to reclaim it... and also it's a whodunit, because this guy was murdered, this supposed prodigy of the generation (I can't remember the Yiddish phrase, sorry) but got overcome by the pressure and also did heroin. And the main character is of course Landsman, the inspector on the case and his ex-wife is his overseer and there's so much tension between them you could cut it the way you would cut a watermelon with a katana:
(This what we do on Friday nights.) Anyway, let's get right down to it, shall we?


"'You know the expression 'a broken man'?... Most people it gets applied to don't really deserve it... Most men, in my opinion, they have nothing there to break in the first place. But this Lasker. He was like one of those sticks you snap, it lights up. You know? For a few hours. And you can hear broken glass rattling inside of it'" (3). Lasker was the murdered man. This... Well, I've been wracking my brain to think of how this would describe someone, and in Lasker's case it works--he was this child prodigy. Supposedly, of every generation, a possible Messiah is born. This was the kid. He had performed miracles (supposedly), he had an IQ of about 200, he was really good at chess (which is apparently pivotal for the book's existence, but I could have cared less)--that would be when he glowed. But the pressure got to him and he kind of disappeared, became estranged, got addicted to heroin, and later got shot. So okay, at the end of the book, what was said makes sense. But at the beginning I didn't understand it.

"'Who died?' 'A yid in a predicament,' Berko tells him. 'Dog bites man'" (67). That is, it's run of the mill, the usual. Men are always biting dogs, yids are always getting killed? Oh. Was it even necessary for me to clarify? I felt it was, but that's probably just because of my journalism class with Heidi Awesome-Miller. We learned about Dog Bites Man/Man Bites Dog. (That is, report on the unusual, which would obviously be the second option.)

Oh, what I did learn from this book? Apparently the Greeks had a goddess of chess. Caissa. Oh, but actually she was invented during the Renaissance? What? You can't just make up goddesses and say they're Greek. That's cheating. And look at this picture! Zero percent of it makes sense. Zero. Mostly nude, gonna take a bath... oh, what's that strange thing, just chilling in the wilderness? I think I'll teach myself how to play it! Oh, okay. Sounds good.

"'You don't want to redeem the world?'... 'I guess I got over it,' she says, but Landsman doesn't buy that. Bina never stopped wanting to redeem the world. She just let the world she was trying to redeem get smaller and smaller until, at one point, it could be bounded in the hat of a hopeless policeman" (169).

"'My Saturday night is like a microwave burrito. Very tough to ruin something that starts out so bad to begin with" (189). Hehe.

One of the worst things in this book is Chabon's overuse of metaphors and similes. Some of them are very colorful and interesting, but after 400 some-odd pages, it really wears thin. Near the very end he compares crouching people to dwarves hammering away or something. Like, what? No, Chabon, just no. Stop stop stop.
_
I honestly don't have much to say about this book. I enjoyed very little of it other than what I quoted (and let's face it, even the worst books are quotable, unless if Sarah Dessen or Stephanie Meyer wrote it) and the cover, which is very intricate and cool. The coolest part is the bottom left corner (so far as I know, only one cover exists for this book, whether the edition is hardcover or softcover) which has a gun with parenthesis encompassing the bullets atop where the bullets would go in, then parenthesis around the whole gun (these kind of parenthesis {, they're intended to be like, which are my favorite kinds of parenthesis) and a talking bubble coming from the gun's uh, muzzle? (the part the bullets come out of) with a skull on it. Then, that entire box is in another parenthesis, as all together, they are COD. But. The book itself. It was uninteresting, opaque, and tiresome. Disappointingly different from The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay. Supposedly--according to my source of Robby D--Michael Chabon just churns this stuff out, that he's the Stephen King of his niche, so it's no real surprise that this one sucks, because well, he's just churning it out. Stephen King writes crappy books all the time. And I mean, maybe it's because I don't like chess or something. Chess sucks. I actually don't even know how to play. It's definitely a MENSA-person game, though. And seeing as I'm clearly not in MENSA...
_
Uh, yeah, that's it, I guess.
Answer to last post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: Oscar Wilde by Company of Thieves
This post's cryptic song lyrics for Emma: Even if the cancer grows till we explode, I'm yours
_
Also, current events: Can't find my copy of Holes by Louis Sachar. Seriously enraged. That book's only the mayor of Awesometown, no biggie.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

The Collected Oscar Wilde

Well, I decided I wouldn't do this because I try to shy away from writing about collections of shorts stories and poetry and stuff because it's mainly summary, it's really disjointed, it usually has about .0001% of the original work imbued into it, and really would only mean the most to someone who's read the stuff for sure instead of just a casual observer. (This is not meant as a shot against you, Emma.) But, then my brain said OSCAR WILDE. And I was all, yeah, I AM going to talk about him for forty megabytes. I am.


Anyway, this is a Barnes & Noble collection of his randomly selected works, possibly all of his short stories, possibly all of his poetry, and all of his essays/lectures (maybe), and the three-act version of The Importance of Being Earnest. It also has a brief history of his life, as these books are wont to do, and a brief history of the note-taker of the volume, which no one reads.


I have a pretty clear idea idea of Oscar Wilde's life, though not an intimate idea, as I have never read this introduction, nor a biography of any sort on the man (which may seem kind of surprising). I skimmed the introduction included with the Barnes & Noble edition of The Picture of Dorian Gray, and that was enough. His history is not a pleasant one, at the end, and it does quite well to upset me, right down to my marrow. For those of you who don't know, Oscar Wilde was put on trial for homosexuality charges, and supposedly they couldn't reach a clear verdict (depending on the source, some say it was very cut-and-dry for guilty)--so they sent him to two years in jail with hard labor anyway. Actually, I lie when I say I never read the introduction in this book; I have skimmed the very end. I got so upset--so stomach sick, I get stomach sick just thinking about it here--I had to put the book down. The jail was a grimy place, naturally, dank and damp, the only toilet a bucket, and Wilde's health suffered greatly because of that, he was constantly ill, he had to perform hard labor that tore up his hands and fingernails (I have a thing about fingernails). And more, and more. You can see the difference in 'The Ballad of Reading Gaol' in him from his other works, and then compare it to his earlier works (I'll touch upon this later)... it's wrenching, for me at least. You remember how when I write about the Russian Revolution, specifically about the Romanovs, I get upset? This is one of those. It's just... so twisted, so wrong, and it strikes a painful note in me that there's no avoidance of at all or possibility of being fixed because it has passed, it has passed.




Well, on that depressing note, let's get started. My first note regards 'The Portrait of Mr WH', a story which seems to be more of an intention to get Wilde's theory of Shankspeare's sonnets being written for a male lover, or just a male in general, across. I don't think it's entirely Wilde's theory alone--he was just one of the first. (When I happened to bring this up to Heidi, she asked me, "Now what would Mr Wilde know about that sort of thing, hm?") I believe his theory was that they written for a handsome young actor, though in reality no historical basis exists for the boy. Anyway... the quote, very eloquent indeed: "To him... [the sonnets] were poems of serious and tragic import, wrung out of the bitterness of Shakespeare's heart, and made sweet by the honey of his lips" (13).

"'You forget that a thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it'" (20). "'After all, what do [the sonnets] tell us about Shakespeare? Simply that he was the slave of beauty.' 'Well, that is the condition of being an artist!'" (21). (These aren't related; this simply saves room.)


Another example of Wilde's brilliant eloquence: "Later on there came to Sidney's house in London, one--some day to be burned at Rome, for the sin of seeing God in all things--Giordana Bruno" (42).

"What does it matter? It is only acting, only a comedy in real life" (57). "Consciousness, indeed, is quite inadequate to explain the contents of personality. It is Art, and Art only, that reveals us to ourselves" (68). (This he fervently believes in and it will come up more frequently later on.)

"How curiously it had all been revealed to me! A book of Sonnets, published nearly three hundred years ago, written by a dead hand and in honour of a dead youth, had suddenly explained to me the whole story of my soul's romance... Strange, that we knew so little about ourselves, and that our most intimate personality was concealed from us!'" (70). This is beautiful, I love that phrase, "the whole story of my soul's romance". It's just... so lovely. This a fantastic passage, including that what the ellipses have hidden. But it was very touching, something about it touches me, it breaks my heart and makes me love it all the more fervently at the same time.

"Martyrdom was to me merely a tragic form of scepticism, an attempt to realise by fire what one had failed to do by faith. No man dies for what he knows to be true. Men die for what they want to be true, for what some terror in their heart tells them is not true" (77).

The next story is 'Lord Arthur Savile's Crime', a sort of comedy about murder, with an ending that always sort of surprises me and I understand, but kind of dislike because it is not where I would have taken it at all. (Though, with its humorous roots, my ending would have made it very awkward and much like Castor oil.) It's about Lord Arthur, a few months before his marriage, who gets his palm read at Lady Windmere's (I see what you did there!) home. The palm reader is quite frightened, and eventually tells Arthur he is destined to murder someone, so Arthur steels himself to kill before he gets married for his wife's sake. It's a comedy, because he just can't get it down--his attempt at exploding a relation falls flat, his attempt at poisoning an old family acquaintance falls flat... well, in humorous ways, I guess you kind of have to read it to see the humor really well.

"Actors are so fortunate. They can choose whether they will appear in tragedy or in comedy, whether they will suffer or make merry, laugh or shed tears. But real life is different. Most men and women are forced to perform parts for which they have no qualifications... the world is a stage, but the play is badly cast" (88). "Life to him meant action, rather than thought. He had that rarest of all things, common sense" (94).

From 'The Model Millionaire': "Romance is the privilege of the rich, not the profession of the unemployed" (113).

One of my favorite stories if 'The Canterville Ghost', the story of a ghost who attempts to terrify an American family who has recently moved into his domain. It is, for the most part, a comedy (the end is not, and whether I enjoy the end when I read it depends on my mood) that mocks Americans. For example, there is a bloodstain on the floor--the father is not disturbed, he simply takes special cleaning fluid and blots it out. When the ghost rattles his chains, the father offers him oil for the chains. It is meant to be (in its more comedic portion) a "satire upon American materialism" (Fletcher's note, 119). What I have marked is in its more serious ending, however, mostly of the ghost's interaction with the American family's daughter Virginia.

"'Death must be so beautiful. To lie in the soft brown earth, with the grasses waving above one's head, and listen to silence. To have no yesterday, and no to-morrow. To forget time, to forgive life, to be at peace'" (138).

"'You can have your secret as long as I have your heart'" (147). So, Oscar, let me turn that one right back on you. Because I'm pretty sure this is the sweetest thing I've ever read.

'The Young King' is a very clear Jesus metaphor through and through. A young king, before his coronation, has several nightmares, all of them about the works who suffered to find him jewels and gold and to weave his glorious robes and all, and becomes quite disturbed. He decides to go to the coronation wearing a sheepskin coat and held his crook as a scepter and used a crown of briars. Oh, did I mention that he was, at one point, a shepherd? I believe a big point is to be made that he is accused of doing himself up like a beggar and said that he will shame them all, but in reality he is more kingly and unable to shame, since he is following the example of, well, Jesus. It's a pretty cool little package, a pretty concept to write about. I've never seen something quite in this exact vein before.

My other favorite story is 'The Remarkable Rocket'. It's a story about rockets to be set off for the wedding of the king's son. All the rockets are personified, and there is one dreadful rocket who won't shut up about himself and how--well--remarkable he is.

"'Any place you love is the world to you'" (216).

"'...Love is not fashionable any more, the poets have killed it. They wrote so much about it that nobody believed them, and I am not surprised. True love suffers, and is silent'" (216). This kind of reminds me of the scene in Pride and Prejudice where Mr Darcy and Elizabeth are talking about poetry--Elizabeth says something like, how many loves have been destroyed poetry, Mr Darcy appears surprised, saying he always thought it to be the "food of love" (CH 9), but she responds with that it helps nourish a strong love, but will kill a fragile love (sonnets in particular).

"'Why, anybody can have common sense, provided that they have no imagination'" (218). "'It is a very dangerous thing to know one's friends'" (219).

There is a 'poem in prose' entitled 'The Master'. It is hardly half a page, it is about a beautiful young man who is starved and distraught and had wounded his body with thorns. He is weeping, presumably after Christ's death, and when comfort is attempted to be given to him, he says he is not crying for Christ, but for himself, because he has committed miracles the same as Jesus, but he was not crucified. I think it's interesting because of the quote I put up earlier, about martyrs, the one from page 77 (ctrl+f it.) He desperately wanted to believe, and wanted to die for it, but he wasn't tortured and so had to live with his disbelief? Or, from Bob Dylan's Tarantula: "you have no answers! you have just found a way to pass your time! without this thing, you would shrivel up & be nothing--you are afraid of being nothing--you are caught up in it--it's got you!' i am so Sick of Biblical people--they are like castor oil--like rabies & now i wish for Your eyes..." (84).

All of his poems are fairly interesting and very pleasant, but my favorite is the most disheartening, 'The Ballad of Reading Gaol', his poem written while imprisoned. (Reading is a place, and Gaol is another name for jail.) The poem is interesting, as much as it is depressing. I can't help but wonder--and most likely guess correctly--that it's sort of a slash at Lord Alfred Douglas as well, his alleged lover. I believe this for many reasons, the first being the fact that the refrain of the poem is "Each man kills the thing he loves" (249) and later he adds, "Yet each man does not die" (249). Perhaps a direct jab at Alfred? Obviously, Wilde was not hung, but many of the observations are directed at other inmates who were hung. And he could mean, die as in suffer in a way that is like death, or you deserve death because this is what you have brought upon me... And in the refrain, Wilde has "The coward does it with a kiss, the brave man with a sword!" (249). Of course, the kiss could be a reference to Judas's kiss, but again, it works for Lord Alfred Douglas as well. And then the sword--perhaps saying, it would have been better if you had just flat out killed me than to leave me to suffer this fate? And later, he cries out: "Alas! It is a fearful thing to feel another's guilt!" (257). Who knows, this speculation could be as foundless as the Willie Hughes theory ('The Portrait of Mr WH'.)


As for the rest of the poem, it is obviously very dark and depressing. Bitter, sad, fearful--it's upsetting--"Something was dead in each of us, and what was dead was Hope" (260), "What word of grace in such a place could help a brother's soul?" (255), "It eats the flesh and bone by turns, But it eats the heart away" (264), and yet--somewhat sort of optimistic towards the end, on the very last stanza on 268 that carries over to 269, it reads as follows: "Ah! happy they whose hearts can break And peace of pardon win! How else may man make straight his plan And cleanse his soul from Sin? How else but through a broken heart May Lord Christ enter in?"


"...Beauty is the only thing that time cannot harm. Philosophies fall away like sand, creeds follow one another, but what is beautiful is a joy for all seasons, a possession for eternity" (279). (From 'Where Morality is not in Question', a lecture.)

From his lecture, 'Decorative Art in America: "When I was at Leadville and reflected that all the shining silver I saw coming from the mines would be made into ugly dollars, it made me sad" (287). First of all, this sounded really cute. Very personal, but in a cute way.* If that makes sense? Second of all, the case he is making is that beautiful resources are being wasted on ugly things: he complains about gaudy golden jewelry earlier, and right after his statement about the silver being turned to dollars, he says it "should be made into something more permanent" (287), like a monument, say (his example), the golden gates at Florence, which have been around since Michael Angelo's time and are just as beautiful as they were then.

*He also complains a little while later of the cups he was served drinks in in a hotel. He complains that they are plain and non-delicate, an "inch and a quarter thick" (288), and that he cannot fathom that because the hotels spend so much on gaudy and ugly fixtures and details, why not spend some of that on a nice teacup? His final comment on that is, "I think I have deserved something nicer" (288). Very cute, again, in a pouty little boy way.

"Beauty is justified by all her children, and cares nothing for explanations" (318). "Where there is loveliness in dress, there is no dressing up" (319). (These both, and those following until I say so, come from 'The Relations of Dress to Art'.)

"For Art is not to be taught in Academies. It is what one looks at, not what one listens to, that makes the artist. The real schools should be the streets" (319). THIS IS WHY I'M NOT GOING TO ART SCHOOL! Thank you, Oscar, and remind me to quote this next time someone asks me that damned question.

From 'The Decay of Lying', an essay in the form of a dialogue that advocates lies, or, fiction. (In its very basest explanation. It's rather long, and you would do better just to read it yourself, as with any other thing quoted here.) "The only real people are the people who never existed" (367). Because they are more interesting, deeper, more has been put into them, they are certainly subjected to more curious, interesting, and exciting events. About facts, which he so hates, and our love and need for them in our more modern times (even then!): "Certainly we are a degraded race, and have sold our birthright for a mess of facts" (371).

"But you don't seriously believe that Life imitates Art, that Life in fact is the mirror, and Art the reality?" (378). I'm not so sure if Wilde seriously believed this (though considering how often and passionately he wrote about it, I think I'd have trouble believing he didn't) or just enjoyed thinking about it and toying with it; either way, he writes about it quite often.

"One does not see anything until one sees its beauty. Then, and then only, does it come into existence" (383). "When people talk to us about others they are usually dull. When they talk about themselves they are nearly always interesting, and if one could shut them up, when they become wearisome, as easily as one can shut up a book... they would be perfect absolutely" (395).

"...We used to canonize our heroes. The modern method is to vulgarize them" (395). Of course, this remains true today. One only has to look at a magazine rack... well, anywhere. And then, this line turns out to be eerily prophetic for Wilde himself, of course--as it was at the height of his popularity and his most productive stage (or damned near close) that he was accused and put through his trials. (Kind of along with this, from 'The Critic as an Artist': "By carefully chronicling the current events of contemporary life, it shows us of what very little importance such events really are" [449]. Again, prophetic in that sense that people today don't care for Wilde's trial and would not be alarmed--that the trial is even called the Most Useless Trial of the Century--though the author of that book apparently was never told that the 1800's and 1900's are two different centuries...)

"I can fancy a man who had led a perfectly commonplace life, hearing by some chance some curious piece of music, and suddenly discovering that his soul, without his being conscious of it, had passed through terrible experiences, and known fearful joys, or wild romantic loves, or great renunciations" (396). This reminds me of page 68 and 70, from 'The Portrait of Mr WH'. Shortly before this statement, Gilbert (one half of the dialogue) talks about how certain music makes him feel a certain way; Chopin makes him feel as if he is "weeping over sins I have never committed" (396). Well, of course, it's simple enough to imagine, it's harder to imagine a man that has never been struck in the same way by a piece of music or a section of written word or a piece of art. The way I think of it is--well--the way I feel it is an ache in my heart, painful and sweeter than a ripe peach, and I imagine something is pulling at it, maybe pulling the ghost of it from my body in a way that hurts, but with calming lavender-scented hands, or cool hands, soft as velvet. And your head and chest suddenly become full. You know?

"Why cannot the artist be left alone, to create a new world if he wishes it" (396).

"It is well for his peace that the saint goes to his martyrdom. He is spared the sight of the horror of his harvest" (414). This is an interesting concept too, I think. I mean, the first martyr that comes to mind is Jesus, and his doctrine has raised wars, racial troubles, religious scuffles--certainly what he was trying to avoid. And martyrs hung caused revolution, more deaths piled up, an explosion of violence and rage (the French revolution is at the forefront here). And, even though V for Vendetta isn't real, after he upends society (in the movie), how much do you want to bet that people will crawl around filthy like rodents and fight and burn and destroy until reverting to a government similar to before?

"[The record of one's soul] is more fascinating than history, as it is concerned simply with oneself. It is more delightful than philosophy... It is the only civilized form of autobiography, as it deals with not the events, but with the thoughts of one's life; not with life's physical accidents of deeds or circumstance, but with the spiritual moods and imaginative passions of the mind" (419). "Those who try to lead the people can only do so by following the mob" (441). "Our of ourselves we can never pass, nor can there be in creation what in the creator was not" (444).

"...The more objective a creation appears to be, the more subjective it really is" (444). This just reminds of a theory Marky Mark told us about, that history is really actually subjective completely even though it's meant to be objective--sounds strange, but here's my support for that: If you're American, of course you know about the American revolution. It's the most important war in our history! It made us who we are. However, British text books hardly dedicate more than a few paragraphs to it, and in one of his Horrible History books, Teary Deary refers to the revolution as a "little problem" with the colonies.

"What other people call one's past has... everything to do with them, but has absolutely nothing to do with oneself" (445). That is, people change, grow, the kid who pulled your hair and bullied you at age five won't do so at age fifteen, and probably doesn't even remember doing so, for example. The victim of the hair-pulling still remembers and remains weary, but the ex-bully is thinking, no, I'm different, that was me, but now I'm a new me, pay attention to this me, the real me. Oscar Wilde, stop describing my thoughts and issues that bother me now to the T. It's starting to weird me out.

"Fine expression for a joy, and you intensify its ecstacy. Do you wish to love? Use Love's Litany, and the words will create the yearning from which the world fancies that they spring" (454). This is another intriguing concept, and another one which makes Wilde to be uncomfortably in my brain. He's arguing that reading about or being told about certain emotions makes you feel them--or, yearn for them, that perhaps in this case the yearning is not for your own personal Juliet, but a yearning for that boundless insane love is what causes those intense words, that you're trying to pull them out of yourself and plaster them onto other people, trying to match it--whatever you think 'it' may be.

"People cry out against the sinner, yet it is not the sinful, but the stupid, who are our shame. There is no sin except stupidity" (461). Again, mildly prophetic. Also, got your back, W.

From 'The Soul of Man Under Socialism', in which Wilde advocates a form of it... "...The best among the poor are never grateful... Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table?" (494).

"The true perfection lies, not in what a man has, but in what man is" (496). "What is outside of [man] should be a matter of no importance" (497). And, with socialism: "Nobody will waste his life in accumulating things, and the symbols for things. To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all" (497). While most people see socialism as a surrendering of freedom, Wilde clearly sees it the other way--without the burden and desire of garnering things, you know, they can live, as I've quoted. They are actually set free to develop spiritually and mentally seems to be his argument.

Wilde also works into socialism as being what Jesus advocated for--which doesn't really interest me, not his argument at least, but the fact that CS Lewis may be calling out Wilde for this in The Screwtape Letters. At one point a letter is sent that the people's new interpretations of Christ help drive people away from Christianity, because those interpretations are influenced by current events instead of the historical landscape of the ancient times and thus are wrong. The example of this is saying that Jesus's words were forms of socialism or communism. Wilde's take on it is that Jesus wanted people to be completely self-realized because that's the most important thing in life, in existence, and when one has possessions they are too distracted by those to gain self-realization, and so on--"Your perfection is inside of you" (499).


A section I thought interesting: "After all, even in prison, a man can be quite free. His soul can be free. His personality can be untroubled. He can be at peace" (500). What I believe is worth noting is the fact that this was written in 1891--before Wilde was imprisoned. This, compared to the harsh conditions described in 'The Ballad of Reading Gaol'... The conditions which essentially ruined him, stuck him with depression and destroyed his health completely... Well, I guess that this would show the difference between his--naivete, perhaps?--and what it really was like. If I may, I'd daresay that these words most likely haunted him in jail and he cursed them and himself.


"There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading. It is mentally and morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless activities... To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt" (504).


Wilde goes on to talk about how machinery should be enlisted to do man's work, saying "on slavery of the machine, the world depends" (505), again, for self-actualization, because there will be nothing to worry about. And we wouldn't have to worry about the machinery stealing jobs, because drudging jobs wouldn't exist, money wouldn't exist, because it would all be simply communal. Because it's socialism!


"...The artist can fashion a beautiful thing; and if he does not do it solely for his own pleasure, he is not an artist at all" (506).


"In Art, the public accept what has been, because they cannot alter it, not because they appreciate it. They swallow their classics whole, and never taste them. They endure them as the inevitable, and, as they cannot mar them, they mouth about them... this acceptance of classics does a great deal of harm" (508). Oh hey, sounds like my English classes every year. He goes onto say--not only again to parade his fervent love of Shankspeare by comparing his works to the Bible--but to say that in this way, because they just accept it, they can't truly understand its beauty and meaning because they could really care less (Oh hi, sophomore British lit class). However, they do use it as a judge, or, as Wilde puts it, a bludgeon, of other works, or to beat things back into the mold--say, to ask an author "Why don't you write more like X?" or why doesn't Y painter paint more like Z painter? And then criticize those, even though if they did, they would not only "cease to be an artist" (508) but also would be criticized for fraud. (This second bit he did not say, but you know it's the truth.) He goes on to add that when a fresh model of beauty comes into fruition it bewilders those stuck to their misinterprated classics and they harangue it and decide it to be unintelligable and, overall, immoral. I find this interesting, and especially poignant, because the next book I have begun is James Joyce's Ulysses, a new form of writing which would be a perfect example of all Wilde has spoken. Had this essay been written later--had Wilde lived that long, of course, and waited, if many things were different--one would almost certainly guess at that to be the example, I'm sure. Maybe.


"In old days men had the rack. Now they have the press" (512). "The private lives of men and women should not be told to the public" (513).


From 'A Few Maxims for the Instruction of the Over-Educated': "Friendship is far more tragic than love. It lasts longer" (529).
"To be really mediaeval one should have no body. To be really modern one should have no soul. To be really Greek one should have no clothes" (530).
"Those whom the gods love grow young" (530).



From 'Phrases and Philosophies for the Use of the Young': "The first duty in life is to be as artificial as possible" (531). "What the second duty is no one has as yet discovered" (531).
"Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for the curious attractiveness of others" (531).
"Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead religions" (531).
"Nothing that actually occurs is of the smallest importance" (531).
"If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out" (531).
"Time is a waste of money" (532).
"One should always be a little improbable" (532).
"Only the great masters of style ever succeed in being obsure" (533). I concur!
"To love oneself is the beginning of a life-long romance" (533).



And, from the preface to The Picture of Dorian Gray--a book also available in Barnes and Noble's classics line but does not, in their edition, include the preface, nor the "artist's preface". Oh, okay. That makes sense.

"Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault" (534). I was going to say which characters of the book this could be a direct stab at--namely, Dorian himself, but then I realized how stupid that sounded. Oh, the preface would be about the book it's prefacing? Really?

"There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all" (534). This quote appears in another work--perhaps 'The Decay of Lying'--only 'books' is replaced with 'poems'.

What else? In this edition, there is the three-act version of 'The Importance of Being Earnest', but I'm not going to touch that--I am in posession of the actual five-act play, so when I reread it, well, there you go. So... yeah. There's not much more to say, other than this is probably the longest post I've ever written, beacuse I am in love with Oscar Wilde and, quite frankly, could have written lots more. The one thing that bothers me about this is that this isn't a complete other than his plays and novel work. Yes, there is a book of his plays, but between the three Barnes & Noble Classics books, his works aren't complete. There are still a few stories unpublished, and I believe an essay or two, of course his letters, and then his first play--which okay, was a commercial failure, but actually that's probably what inspired all his rants on the critics and the foolishness of the public. Okay, so maybe it looks like I'm being a little nitpicky, but it's a little obnoxious--it's like having every single Pokemon card and just needing that one Charizard. Is it worth buying all those booster packs of Pokemon cards you already have for the chance of getting the Charizard? Well... yes, if it's a Charizard we're talking about, I mean... No! No, I mean. It's a pain in the neck. So, dear Barnes & Noble publishers, would you be willing to publish a book of all his other works you didn't deem fit to publish with the 'Classics' editions? (Actually, he'd probably be happier about not being in that lump... maybe. Or honoured. I'd get a huge ego, to hell with what a wrote about bludgeoning and such.) But seriously, Barnes & Noble. Get to it. Or not. Give me more reasons to type your name; I don't have nearly enough oppurtunities to include ampersands in my life, and I love ampersands. And I just had to use a semicolon, too! Ah, life is good.


So, yeah, read Oscar Wilde because HE'S AWESOME.


Cryptic song lyrics for Emma: Episodes and parallels, and don’t you want the invitation? Big bright accent, catty smile... (I can imagine anyone who recognizes these lyrics doing a great big face palm right now. LOOK. The rule is, it has to relate.)

Friday, June 4, 2010

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by JK Rowling

Well! This is going a little out of order, but I'm a little short of time and will be until Sunday afternoon (or more) and Harry Potter will be much easier to get through.
Obviously I've read the book before. I'm pretty sure everyone ever has read it, even people who died before the book was published. It just got so popular that these dead guys, uh, created worm holes, and took copies, and... well. You know the rest. Anyway, the reason why I'm writing about it is because we read the book in Wizards. And... is a summary necessary? An average little British boy finds out he is a wizard. And he's like the chosen kid or something yayyyy. Guys, it's Harry Potter!


This is the first time I've reread it ever--I never felt compelled to, not even the third one, which was my favorite book of the series. But anyway, that means I noticed a lot of foreshadowing and references and stuff I wouldn't have gotten.... my God, it's been nine years since I first read this book. Well. My first note is just that Hagrid's flying motorcycle was lent to him by "young Sirius Black" (18). My second note is also foreshadowing--Harry speaking to the snake at the zoo. (Did that even happen in the movie? It's been eight years since I've seen that in its completeness.) It's foreshadowing the discovery of his Parseltongue (the ability to speak to snakes) in the second book.

I like how Ron's mom tells Fred and George not to ask Harry about Voldemort for fear it may upset him and then Ron goes ahead and does just that.
One think that seems strange is when they first speak of Dean Thomas they say he's "a Black boy" (152). Why is black capitalized? Well, I guess they can't really say he's African American, but...

During one of the Quidditch matches Harry momentarily sees gold and thinks it's the Snitch, but realizes it's one of the Weasley twins' wristwatches. Isn't it funny that they have watches, like, normal watches? Maybe?

"'Hermione, the exams are ages away.' 'Ten weeks,' Hermione snapped. 'That's not ages, that's like a second to Nicholas Flamel'" (284). SHUT UP, HERMIONE. Starting to remember why exactly she was my least favorite character....

In the movie, there are two trials to get to the chamber where the stone is hidden that are taken out. One of them is Snape's trial, which is a logic problem and nothing more. As in, a critically-thinking eight-year-old could get through it. There are several potions laid out and to get past you must drink one... here are some sample clues: "Two of us will help you... one among us seven will let you move ahead, another will transport the drinker back instead... two among our number hold only nettle wine... three of us are killers... you will always find some on nettle wine's left side.... different are those at either end, but if you would move onward, neither is your friend... neither dwarf nor giant holds death in their insides... the second left and the second right are twins once you taste them, though different at first sight" (354-355). Good job, Snape. Thank you for giving us the answers. No, really, you're great. Though I do like the change they made in the movie that Hermione stays to help Ron instead of her staying being only because there's not enough potion for her and Harry. That kind of makes her look like a jerk...
It bothers me that the stone just appears in Harry's pocket. You had me, then you lost me. TOO FAR, ROWLING, TOO FAR!

Oh, and Dumbledore's point system at the end? I feel like the Slytherins would have revolted. I would have been hopping mad. Like... Oh, Slytherin wins! LOL JK, Gryffindor just got 170 more points and they win. YOU KIDS SUCK! I like Joe Dunn's strip about this. Actually, all of his Harry Potter strips are pretty hilarious.


Anyway. After rereading this--well, we dissected this in class. It's full of plot devices, cliches, et cetera--well, it kind of doesn't hold up to my enjoyment of it as a kid. I probably won't reread the whole series, though I will continue to watch the movies, since at this point most of my fond memories of the series are about the movies, or the LEGO sets. (I have Hogwarts Castle, The Dursleys'/Flying car set, Gringott's, Diagon Alley, the Quidditch set and the mini Buckbeak set, so there! ....Not that I can find the instructions to any of them other than Hogwarts and the Dursleys' ... or Snape... *sigh*.) Man, I would totally kill to get the whole LEGO series... time to hit Amazon up....

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Beloved by Toni Morrison

I guess there's no need for my stupid introduction sentence anymore, now that I do that title thing. Aww. I liked my awkward introductions. Well, I'll just get right down to it then. This book is (mainly) about Sethe, an escaped slave girl living in Ohio a few years after the Civil War. Her house is haunted by a ghost when we first meet her. I feel like I should explain who the ghost is; it's her dead baby daughter. (You find this out about four pages in. I'm being good!) This baby wasn't even named, at least, nothing more than the 'Beloved' that Sethe had carved on the baby's stone. Anyway, she lives in this haunted house with her still-living daughter, Denver. She had two sons, but they ran away because of the house and its "spite", her husband is dead, and her husband's mother dies pretty early on. I guess the most important thing to mention is that a man she knew at Sweet Home (plantation) shows up, chases the baby spirit out, and soon thereafter a stranger shows up at their door.


"'It's gonna hurt now,' said Amy. 'Anything dead coming back to life hurts'" (35). Amy is the girl who helped Sethe escape, and what she actually is talking about are Sethe's feet which are swollen similarly to the way a drowned body's would be swollen, because Sethe has walked so far over rough terrain. But still, it's important for something later on which I'm zipping the lip for. (I don't know why I'm trying to be so good for this. I will be spoiling this later on; it's necessary for book observations.)

Oh, actually, I'll be throwing huge spoilers in now. The stranger appears on page 52, confused at the concept of a last name, confused as to where she is, with stolen clothes and shoes she didn't even know how to tie. (The stranger is supposed to be about eighteen.) The stranger introduces herself as Beloved--the second she said this, a flag went up. I was immediately like, that's the dead baby come back from the dead!!! And Denver immediately realizes, and Paul D (the man from Sweet Home) realizes shortly, but Sethe doesn't realize until about 120 pages later. I mean, it makes sense, if she realized earlier there wouldn't be the same dramatic effect, and it would be much shorter, but it makes Sethe seem a little bit unrealistic. Well... maybe not. I guess not many people expect dead babies to come back... I guess I'm being harsh. Well, going back to what Amy said, Beloved was sick with a fever in a bad way.
"'Today is always here... Tomorrow, never'" (59).

Sethe comes to realize who beloved is because she catches Beloved humming a song that Sethe had made up and sung to her children as youngens. Because of this, she immediately starts feeling immensely guilty... Well, not that she wasn't feeling guilty before, but now that she a physical reminder right in front of her, she wants to apologize for her deeds no longer by explanation (she killed Beloved to protect her from white men) but by overindulging Beloved. She starts giving all of her and Denver's food to Beloved and shutting Denver out, and Beloved grows fat and bloated and Sethe starves herself, so it literally appears that Beloved is sucking the life out of her mother.

Denver at one point (SPOILERS HAVE ENDED RANDOMLY!) seeks work at a white folk's house, and I guess until the mid-1900's it was popular to have these stereotypical black money-holders. I say this because in Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison the (black) protagonist comes across a similar device. I don't remember what the description of that one was, other than the money went into its mouth and that it ended in bitty pieces when he becomes enraged. Denver sees one described in much greater detail, in an uncomfortable amount of detail: "His head was thrown back farther than a head could go, his hands were shoved in his pockets. Bulging like moons, two eyes were all the face he had above the gaping red mouth. His hair was a cluster of raised, widely spaced dots made of nail heads. And he was on his knees. His mouth, wide as a cup, held the coins needed to pay for a delivery or some other small service, but could just as well have held buttons, pins or crab-apple jewelry. Painted across the pedestal he knelt on were the words 'At Yo Service'" (255). Ugh. I honestly can't imagine seeing something like that, much less owning it, or being comfortable with it in the first place. Though I have to say, although Invisible Man definitely didn't have as in-depth a description of it as Beloved did, Invisible Man used it perhaps more... poignantly? Is that the word? Well, it was a tad more shaking because the woman who owned was herself black and didn't really see what was wrong with it, didn't mind or had trained herself not to mind it and even owning something so racist. Denver is bothered by viewing it.

Okay, and here we go: the ending is great. Well... maybe great isn't the proper word. But it works, it fits, it's perfect. I know I've said this before, but this only adds to the proof that the more I like a book, the less articulate I can get about it. Anyway, here is the main portion of the end, my favorite part: "...Then there is a loneliness that roams. No rocking can hold it down. It is alive, on its own. A dry and spreading thing that makes the sound of one's own feet going seem to come from a far-off place. Everybody knew what she was called, but nobody anywhere knew her name. Disremembered and unaccounted for, she cannot be lost because no one is looking for her, and even if they were, how can they call her if they don't know her name? Although she has claim, she is not claimed... It was not a story to be passed on. They forgot her like a bad dream. After they made up their tales, shaped and decorated them, those that saw her that day on the porch quickly and deliberately forgot her. It took longer for those who had spoken to her, lived with her, fallen in love with her, to forget, until they realized they couldn't remember or repeat a single thing she said, and began to believe that, other than what they themselves were thinking, she hadn't said anything at all. So, in the end, they forgot her too. Remembering seemed unwise... It was not a story to pass on. So they forgot her. Like an unpleasant dream during a troubling sleep... Sometimes the photograph of a close friend or relative--looked at too long--shifts, and something more familiar than the dear face itself moves there. They can touch it if they like, but don't, because they know things will never be the same if they do... Down by the stream in back of 124 her footprints come and go, come and go. They are so familiar. Should a child, an adult place his feet in them, they will fit. Take them out and they disappear again as though nobody ever walked there. By and by all trace is gone, and what is forgotten is not only the footprints but the water too and what is down there. The rest is weather. Not the breath of the disremembered and unaccounted for, but wind in the eaves, or spring ice thawing too quickly. Just weather. Certainly no clamor for a kiss. Beloved'" (275).


So, the book... the book was fantastic. It was shocking and uncomfortable and very disturbing (Beloved at the end of the novel makes my skin crawl just imagining her) and messed with the head. It was written perfectly (well, almost--a lot of semicolons are forsaken) and... man! This book is great. Seriously. Read it, read it, read it.
And, while I'm thinking of Invisible Man, we just watched the Malcolm X movie in Rebels--anyone thinking the Narrator's story and Malcolm X's seem very similar, at least until the very very end? Yes?

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Tarantula by Bob Dylan

I finished this Sunday, but I've had one hell of a busy weekend-into-this-week, so we're going through it now. Oh, what is 'it'? To live freely and without preoccupations with nothing holding you back... Oh, sorry, thought I was in Rebels for a second. My bad. The 'it' I'm referring to is Bob Dylan's book Tarantula. It is, if I remember correctly, his first book as well.


I was pleasantly surprised by this book, I have to say. I read a while ago, before I started this blog, another of his books, Chronicles Volume One, a... less than impressive book. The sort that makes you say, stick with songwriting, bro. Also, shave that moustache because it grosses me right out the back door. Anyway. This was kind of off-kilter too, but good off-kilter and interesting off-kilter. It was like Kerouac's freewriting, only he didn't even attempt to make correlations, even in the same sentences and paragraphs. He just thought of anything ever and laced it together, though it does come a little more together throughout and create something followable, even if I don't see a really story happening... Yeah, no sources I can find have anything for me either. Okay well, whatever. On with the show!


In the introduction, the publisher has a note that it didn't really matter what was in the book, it would sell and sell big because Bob Dylan wrote it. And all I could really think was, well, duh. It's not worth pointing out I guess, but I felt kind of stupefied at the fact that he felt the need to mention it.

"Poets and writers tell us how we feel by telling us how they feel. They find ways to express the inexpressible. Sometimes they tell the truth and sometimes they lie to keep our hearts from breaking" (VII).

"You know who that everybody's not a Job or a Nero nor a JC Penney..." (6). It's pretty clear what he means, of course, it seems like such an odd range however. Those are three guys I wouldn't mash together.

"My eyes are two used car lots" (14).

"...while it pays to know who your friends are but it also pays to know you aint got any friends... like it pays to know what your friends aint got--it's friendlier to got what you pay for" (23). Bob Dylan, though I understand about ten percent of this book, I agree with this one.

"...maria, she says i'm a foreigner. she picks on me. she pours salt on my love" (48).

"wonder who ronald reagan talked to about the foreign situation? dthink about it kid, but dont ask any foreigners... wonder why castro hates rock n roll? think about kid, but dont ask no roll. wonder how much the man who wrote white christmas made? think about it, but dont ask no made... wonder why youre always wearing your brother's clothes? think about it kid, but dont ask your father. wonder why general electric says that the most important thing for a family to do is stick together? think about it kid, but dont ask no together... wonder what paydirt is? go ahead, wonder... wonder why the other boys wanna beat you up so bad? think about it kid, but dont ask nobody" (65-66). That's an excerpt from 'Note to the Errand Boy as a Young Army Deserter', my favorite, uh, letter of the book. It's kind of set up in these letters to anyone, no back and forth really between a few subjects (they change names, but I don't see a lot of similarities that would say it's two characters just name-switching) just letters, letters.

"why are you so frightened of being embarrassed?... why dont you admit it? why are you so embarrassed to be frightened?" (83).

"...& me so Sick so Sick of these lovers in Biblical roles--'so youre out to save the world are you? you impostor--you freak! youre a contradiction! youre afraid to admit youre a contradiction! youre misleading! you have big feet & you will step on yourself all the people you mislead will pick you up! you have no answers! you have just found a way to pass your time! without this thing, you would shrivel up & be nothing--you are afraid of being nothing--you are caught up in it--it's got you!' i am so Sick of Biblical people--they are like castor oil--like rabies & now i wish for Your eyes..." (84).

I couldn't help but notice there was a section called Subterranean Homesick Blues... which is the same name as one of his songs. I thought it was interesting, and though I can draw some small connections between the two, I can't really make a great case for their connection, or, I'm not picking up on it well. Honestly, I'd really have to study the two and I've had a hell of a busy two weeks... and I have to give the book back... But this is a book I'd buy, so maybe someday...

"i have never taken my singing--let alone my other habits--very seriously--ever since then--i have accepted it--exactly as i would any other crime" (108).
"...there is nothing i can take from you excpt a guilty conscience..." (129).

Well, there you have it. It was interesting, and I would read it again and buy my own copy--mostly so I could take notes in it.

You may also have noticed that the title style has changed: I realized I was being an idiot for not doing this to begin with... (Though I most likely won't be fixing all the other posts.) Even though I have that fun little google search thing, this will be beneficial.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

These walls are paper thin and everyone hears every single sound

Today's post is Paper Towns by John Green. From the many John Green fans in my school, I've come to the conclusion that it is the favorite of 89% of the Green fans. I am sorry to say that I do not fall into this 89%. I have trouble even being kind to it--it was a huge disappointment, especially with his other books in mind. It honestly felt like it was done, rehashed and reused. It was like one of those rulers made out of recycled materials, you know? It's composed of what was once a plastic bottle and Tupperware and what have you, but now it's something new and different--but you can still see the flecks of what into its composition. It's the same old, just in a new form.
I know I sound like I'm being a huge jerk, and I don't really mean to be, but this was just... such a let down. It had its moments, but in its whole, it was just... well.

Our story begins with Q(uentin), who loves Margo, a girl he was friends with as a child but after seeing a dead man in the park with her, never really spoke to her again. Until, however, she hatches a revenge plot upon her friend who was sleeping with her boyfriend, her boyfriend, and the friend who she believes knew all about it in the middle of the night and they break into Sea World and stuff. And then she runs away, and Q becomes determined to follow clues he thinks Margo left for him to find her.


I couldn't help but notice similarities early on: Q is kind of a loser. He made best friends with his best friends because there was really no one else available. Unattainable girl, who he loves but warns us before the story really even begins that he will not end up with her.

And, when they're on their nighttime excursion, Margo makes this speech that I guess is supposed to sound really deep: "'Here's what's not beautiful about it: from here, you can't see the rust or the cracked paint or whatever, but you can tell what the place really is. You can see how fake it all is. It's not even hard enough to be made out of plastic. It's a paper town... all those cul-de-sacs... those streets... all the houses that were built to fall apart. All those paper people living in their paper houses, burning the future to stay warm. All the paper kids drinking beer some bum bought for them at the paper convenience store... all the things paper-thin and paper-frail. And all the people, too. I've lived here for eighteen years and I have never once in my life come across anyone who cares about anything that matters'" (57-58). Maybe you're thinking that's really deep. Maybe I'm just jaded. But I was kind of waiting for more. Like... your point is? Yes? I've read many books by people with this same opinion. Throw something new at me. In this case, maybe it was just bad luck that I happened to read this after I read Palahniuk, Ginsberg, et cetera. It just seemed same old, same old.
Later on, during a drunken party, he refers to his classmates as "paper kids" (178), too. It was just like... shut up. Do you think hating your town and thinking everything is fake is so novel? It's like those kids who discover The Beatles or Bob Dylan and act like they invented them. They've been around for fifty, sixty some-odd years. This idea has been around for much longer.

Though I have to admit, her revenge tactic (throwing fish in the aforementioned people's homes) is genius. I would love to do that to everyone who's done me one over.

"It seemed to me that this was not a place you go to live. It was a place you go to die'" (139).

I hate Q's obsession with finding Margo, too. I understand that he's worried. But his friends get annoyed, and I got annoyed. Get a hobby. Go on Youtube. Do something. Something that's not obsessing, anyway. Jeez. He acts like a whiny brat too, when everyone's excited about prom. Some people are going to prom and are going to have fun. Calm down.

"All along, I kept thinking, I will never do this again, I will never be here again, this will never be my locker again, Radar and I will never write notes in calculus again, I will never see Margo across the hall again. This was the first time in my life that so many things would never happen again" (228). He's about to graduate high school, obviously. And to that I can relate. I haven't quite hit that stage yet, but it's on the horizon.

They go on a road trip, Q and a bunch of his friends, to find Margo. How predictable, how much like an eighties high school movie. It seemed so... boring. Even funny things didn't really make me laugh, like there's this whole scene where Ben has to pee and they can't stop so he pees into a bottle. It's supposed to be hilarious, but I was so... uninterested. Hell, I wasn't even grossed out. Their trip was ridiculous, too. He had the damn thing scheduled down to the half second, which quite frankly is kind of missing the point of a road trip. I mean, they're supposed to be fun and exciting, but he made the thing feel like a slow day at the New York stock exchange (except for a few choice moments). I mean, jeez, if On the Road's road trips were like this, Kerouac would have broken my heart.

"Maybe the sure knowledge that she is alive makes all of that possible again--even if I never see proof of it. I can almost imagine a happiness without her, the ability to let her her go, to feel our roots are connected even if I never see that leaf of grass again'" (274).

"What a treacherous thing it is to believe that a person is more than a person" (282).

"'I mean, he was something that happened to me, you know? But before he was this minor figure in the drama of my life, he was--you know, the central figure in the drama of his own life'" (300). Margo's talking about the dead man she and Q saw as kids. I like that whole scene too, burying her childhood self. And when she talked about her journal it struck me and felt as familiar as my own hand, her story about her the detective and her dog and all... Well, that did strike me. There were some gems in there.


I can't recommend this. However, I highly recommend Looking for Alaska and An Abundance of Katherines. I haven't read his most recent book yet.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Sing the bells of Notre Dame:

So, after about 12 years I've rewatched Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame. I recently acquired it at at a tag sale, though thinking back on it it's kind of strange we didn't own it, seeing as I owned a lot of Hunchback-related toys. I had (and still have) a plastic toy of Djali (Esmeralda's goat), I had a backpack with Esmeralda on it in Kindergarten (the other kids in my class made fun of me because I could never say her name properly) and I had a water paint coloring book of the movie. It was one of those weird ones, with the palette on the paper underneath the picture, and you wet the 'paint' and I guess it would run and you'd use that the paint. And, on the back, there was a picture of Frollo with his hat off and he's balding and it was so funny (hence why he never scared me as a child). Oh, and I had a book where he found a kitten! It was so cute! And I had a finger puppet of one of the statues; I think it was Hugo. The one who said "Who cut the cheese"? Totally remember that commercial, even now. And my neighbor Kristin had this totally cool Esmeralda Barbie doll! (She had Pocahontas, too. Soooo jealous!) And I remembered some parts of the movie, like when Quasimodo is sliding in the water and singing and stuff, though one thing I did not remember was how creepy Claude Frollo is. He SNIFFS Esmeralda's hair at one point. Sniffs it. I'm not even kidding.


Anyway... uh. As you may have guessed, I read Victor Hugo's original novel upon which the movie is based (I decided to after rewatching the film, of course). It was actually pretty good, and I don't feel that Disney changed it too much--well, not any more than usual. Of course some things had to change, like some hangings and imprisonment... Anyway, it was a pretty good book. It makes me a little less nervous to move on to his other works like Les Miserables. In most respects, the book was fairly straightforward, aside from a few digressions and tangents to give a history of a building or person or an explanation of some law or whatever.


Let's see, some notes on my copy: It is relatively old, but AL Burt and his publishing company apparently felt no need to provide a printing date, nor to include the address of their company (which I could have used to gain an estimate of the date, as they apparently changed locations many times in their existence--1889-1937). My guess is that it would have been printed from 1934/4-1937, since it more closely resembles a book from the forties. I suppose that's neither here nor there however...

Oh, and some notes on the characters: Quasimodo hardly crops up till the second half of the novel. Claude Frollo was actually a very decent man (he adopted Quasimodo of his own free will, and killed no gypsy), though he goes half-mad--all the way mad--with lust for Esmeralda. Phoebus is not in love with Esmeralda, he merely wants to sleep with her (though she is in love with him). There is a minor character, Gringoire, who was apparently a real-life poet, who finds himself married to Esmeralda, but she won't let him have sex with her (and of course, he wants to--when he attempts to 'assert' himself she pulls a knife on him, I kid you not. Bravo!) so he apparently takes his--uh--affections out on Djali (thankfully I missed that, though he does seem overfond of the goat always). Oh, he does not appear in the movie at all, either. Let's see... Clopin appears as well, though he's not nearly as cool as he was in the movie. Oh, and the story: Well, it's actually pretty much the same at its base, except Quasimodo is deaf, and doesn't have schizophrenic delusions.


Victor Hugo often speaks to 'the reader', saying things such as, "If it is agreeable to the reader, we will endeavor to retrace in imagination..." (7). And often asking permission, or, if it would please the reader, and so on and so forth. I find that kind of cute. Look at Vic, breaking the fourth wall! You cutie you! Vonnegut thinks he's so novel. (OH SEE WHAT I DID THAR!?) He also occasionally reiterates the scene in a simpler way, which is pretty cool too. Victor Hugo actually invented SparkNotes. And the Internet.

"'What a goodly beard he has!'" (19). I know, you probably think it's idiotic and vexing that I like pointing out parts that have no depth other than that they made me chuckle. But 'goodly beard'!? Come on. I hope I have the chance to tell someone that some day. Preferably a stranger, but not one that's a hobo.

"The bailiff of the palace was a sort of amphibious magistrate, a kind of bat... a something between the rat and the bird, the judge and the soldier" (37). He also describes lawyers as crocodiles, but only crocodiles, unfortunately. Crocodile-birds? Oh wait, pterodactyls. Though, now that I think of it, a "something between the rat and the bird" seems a little redundant if he's talking about bats. Victor Hugo, you crocodile-bird you.


A description of Quasimodo: "...We shall not attempt to give the reader any idea of that tetrahedron nose, of that horse-shoe mouth, of that little left eye stubbed up with an eyebrow of carroty bristles, while the right [eye] was completely overwhelmed and buried by an enormous wen; of those irregular teeth, jagged here and there like the battlements of a fortress; of that horny lip, over which one of those teeth protruded, like the the tusk of an elephant" (43). Victor, thank you for going and giving me an idea of all of those things completely.


"'A one-eyed man is more incomplete than one who is quite blind'" (45). I thought this was an interesting way to look (no puns intended) at it, since when I first read it I was kind of confused. If someone stabbed one of my eyes out in a duel, I would be all, "Well, at least I have the other eye to see with!" But I started thinking--how maddening would that be? Exactly one half of the world would be open to you, and the other half would be, well, black. You could see that other half if you moved, of course, but never would it be open to you all at once. You'd be like a dog chasing its tail all the time. And you'd have no depth perception... So yeah, either go all the way either way. I think I'd hate to have just one day. It would be pretty awful to be completely blind, but if there's anything I've learned from TV and movies, it's that blind people have powers on par with psychics.


"'How gladly I would drown myself, only the water is so cold!'" (49). This line had to have been added to show how cowardly or weak Gringoire is. Ophelia so bad for yourself! Move away from the water! Oh, sorry, wrong story. In any case, this proves that Gringoire is stronger--or, more cowardly--than your average female Shanksspeare character, since Gringoire does not drown himself, and he didn't even need a sassy gay friend to convince him not to kill himself. Which is kind of a shame. It's a good book, but sassy gay friends do tend to improve everything.


There's another description of Quasimodo, which pertains more to his personality: he's strong, active (a "bandy-legged dwarf" [59], whatever that may mean), and spiteful. This kind of reminds me of a story of Edgar Allen Poe's I read a long time ago. I believe the story is called 'Hop-Frog', though that name may have actually only been the name of the main character, a dwarf and a cripple. He was the jester for a king who of course abused him and in revenge Hop-Frog sets him (and several other noblemen) ablaze. But I just... you know... they were both malformed, in almost the same manner (Hop-Frog is named so because his deformities make him unable to stand up straight so he moves with a strange hop, similarly to Quasimodo), and their deformities made them more powerful than the average man. Well, I guess the similarities kind of end there, but still, the description made me draw a connection. And that is a good thing.


Esmeralda amuses the townspeople with pretty tricks and dancing (as does Djali) and this of course inflames Gringoire with passion, though Quasimodo loves her for her kindness to him, even though he is malformed. Anyway, Gringoire decides to follow Esmeralda through the streets, and during his pursuits Quasimodo swoops down and attempts to take her away. Gringoire is petrified with fear, but Phoebus comes from nowhere and saves her. Thus, why she loves Phoebus, and why she rather dislikes Gringoire. Though I believe I mentioned (spoiler alert!) that Phoebus was only lustfully attracted to her... maybe. (Not checking.) There's even a scene where Phoebus is trying to get her into bed and she's like "Oh, I can't wait to be married!" and he says something like, "Why get married? We don't need marriage to validate our love!" Girls, when guys say that, they are probably trying to just get in on that. But my point is, this scene where Quasimodo takes her is important, because it sets up a lot of the future relationships of the book. Yep.


"Reality burst upon him, paining his eyes, treading upon his toes, and demolishing piecemeal the whole frightful poesy by which he had at first fancied himself to be surrounded. He could not help perceiving that he was not walking in the Styx, but in the mud; that he was not elbowed by demons, but by robbers; that his soul was not in danger, but merely his life, because he lacked that excellent mediator between the ruffian and the honest man--the purse" (71). (Gringoire being dragged through the Court of Miracles to his trial, because no one but the Egyptians and vagabonds are allowed down there. Also, I realized for the first time ever whilst reading this that 'gypsy' is short/slang for Egyptian. Oh huhhh.)


Ah! All right, so there's this whole twist (kind of) in the story that's sort of predictable and kind of not. Because I can't shut up about the movie (I'm not even talking about the Lon Chaney one either, gah) I kind of figured it out. Quasimodo's mother is a gypsy (hence why Claude Frollo kicks her down the stairs) then, so I figured it was about the same. Well, they reveal in a flashback that Quasimodo was left on a board for foundlings in Notre Dame (apparently you could just leave babies there back in the day) apparently because of his deformities. Claude Frollo, full of pity, adopts the child of his own free will. But, later on, we meet an old woman whose story is seemingly unrelated and random to the plot, other than that she hates gypsies, because sixteen or so years ago they stole her beautiful child and replaced it with one of their misshapen own. Oh hi, Quasi. And never does the lady stop speaking of how much she hates to see Esmeralda, because her daughter would have been that age, had she not been eaten by the gypsies. That's what gypsies do to kids, by the way. You see what's going on here? Well, I hope so, because this is a lot simpler than Victor Hugo's writing. Sorry if I spoiled it--it's just how I roll.


Yeah, but one of my points is that in the book, Frollo is a really good-hearted guy until he gets an eye on Esmeralda. After his parents died he raised his infant brother on his own (and his brother is a brat too, he's constantly stealing money from Frollo) and like I said adopted Quasimodo and treated him as though a son. Apparently, Quasimodo's first try at bell-ringing had an effect upon Frollo like "that produced upon a parent by the first articulate sounds uttered by his child" (128). Awww, Frollo! Too bad you went crazy.


"Such of them as not most religiously disposed had hoped that the thing would be more easily accomplished in Paradise than at Rome, and had therefore at once prayed to God instead of the pope in behalf of the deceased" (151). I can't tell if Victor Hugo is being sarcastic or not here. The book was written in 1831, and apparently Hugo was Catholic when he was younger (according to Wikipedia) but it does not say how young exactly. Later in his life he became a 'freethinker' and became extremely opposed to the church... but there aren't really any clear dates on this. In fact, I can't really find anything much regarding his Catholic life, though he has some interesting beliefs (the most in my opinion is that he believed evil was a necessary state to wade through in order to achieve higher being)... that apparently wrecked his family life. Oh, oops. (Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/victor-hugo ) Well, I might as well defend my position of why I'd believe it would be sarcastic--of course those less 'religiously disposed' would be more religiously disposed because they're actually praying directly to God--not through the pope.

"'The gallows leads to hell.' 'That is a rousing fire.' 'Jehan, Jehan, the end will be bad.' 'The beginning at least will have been good'" (212).

Ah, yes, here is Phoebus talking his way out of marrying Esmeralda: "'Of what use is marriage? Do people love one another the less for not having mangled Latin in the shop of a priest?'" (232). Yeah, he just wanted to get some--he's even so bold as to pull off her neckerchief and gets an eyeful of her bare shoulders! Woah, Phoebus! Talk about a sleazy dude. (No, but seriously, he probably would have raped Esmeralda if Frollo hadn't stopped him.)

"'We Egyptians want nothing else but air and love'" (233).

"'Alas! If victory has not remained with me, it is this fault of God, who has not made man equal in strength to the demon'" (256). Frollo, lamenting his lust. I thought this was pretty cool because of the Hellfire song--I LOVE the part where Frollo sings and says: "It's not my fault; it's in God's plan--he made the devil so much stronger than a man!"

"Love is like a tree: it shoots of itself, it strikes its roots deeply into our whole being, and frequently continues to be green over a heart in ruins" (296).

"Seizing with both hands the hair remaining on [Frollo's] bald head, [Esmerelda] strove to prevent his kisses... 'Loose me!' she cried, distractedly, 'or I will spit in thy face!' He loosed his hold. 'Strike me; heap indignities upon me; do what thou wilt; but for mercy's sake, love me!'" (308).

On page 319 it is briefly mentioned that it was "'only last month that they hanged a sow'" (319). This is--I believe--based on the actual trial where a sow was accused of beating a child. She was hanged. Her piglets were let free because they were only following the poor example set by their mother.


"'She must have swum over'... 'Who ever heard of a woman swimming?' cried the soldier" (397). I KNOW, RIGHT? Utter stupidity to even suggest that. Women. Swimming. Did we just wander into the twilight zone? Because I'm pretty sure we just did.


Just a note that's yet another spoiler: Esmeralda's mother actually dies in the fashion Quasimodo's does in the movie. Frollo's death isn't that dissimilar from the film; he's clinging to a pipe on Notre Dame which bent under his weight and he fell to his death on the streets of Paris. Esmeralda is hanged, though she is wearing a white rag dress, which may symbolize her purity (as she was not guilty of the crime for which she was accused). Gringoire contented himself with saving Djali, as he is really, really attached to that goat. Like, seriously, man. It's a goat.


I guess I won't spoil it completely, though I am very fond of the ending, even if its somewhat grisly but it's also very touching. Well, this is certainly one of the best books of my recent reading history. Yay.





Yeah, I don't really have much else.